Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 88CA1041
| Decision Date | 26 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88CA1041,88CA1041 |
| Citation | 784 P.2d 849 |
| Parties | Walter Scot BOIGEGRAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael L. GILBERT, Defendant-Appellee. . V |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Walter Scot Boigegrain, pro se.
Hall & Evans, L. Richard Musat and Malcolm S. Mead, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge REED.
In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff, Walter Boigegrain, appeals a summary judgment of dismissal entered in favor of the defendant attorney, Michael L. Gilbert. We affirm.
Plaintiff hired defendant for several months during 1986 to attempt to negotiate, as an attorney on plaintiff's behalf, a new note and deed of trust for the refinancing of certain real property in which plaintiff was part owner or, in the alternative, to negotiate a surrender of the plaintiff's interest in the property by the execution of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, all under certain time constraints and other conditions demanded by plaintiff. When the transaction was not consummated as plaintiff desired, he brought this action against the defendant for negligent malpractice.
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a supporting affidavit, defendant stated that he had knowledge of the prevailing standards of legal practice in the Denver metropolitan area at the time in question and that his actions were in full compliance with those standards. Notwithstanding that plaintiff was given an extension of time to procure expert testimony that defendant had not met the applicable legal standards, no such evidence was ever obtained or submitted by the plaintiff, by affidavit or otherwise. Accordingly, defendant's affidavit of compliance with prevailing legal standards was not controverted by any expert testimony. Because of this lack of controverting evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff contends that the lack of expert testimony indicating a deviation from prevailing standards of legal practice was not sufficient basis for entry of summary judgment. We disagree.
The measure of the duty owed by an attorney to his client is that he must employ that degree of skill, knowledge, and judgment ordinarily possessed by a member of the legal profession at the time the task is undertaken. Myers v. Beem, 712 P.2d 1092 (Colo.App.1985); see also CJI-Civ.2d 15:20 (1980).
We find no Colorado cases precisely on point as to the requirement of expert testimony in a legal malpractice case except that implicit in Morris v. Geer, 720 P.2d 994 (Colo.App.1986). However, drawing an analogy to medical malpractice cases, see Mudd v. Dorr, 40 Colo.App. 74, 574 P.2d 97 (1977), we conclude that except in clear and palpable cases, expert testimony is necessary to establish the standards of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Martin, 06CA1768.
...legal malpractice claims). We consider these cases to be well reasoned and consistent with Colorado precedent. See Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.App.1989)(drawing analogy from medical malpractice case as to need for expert testimony in legal malpractice case); Conrad v. Ima......
-
Trierweiler v. Croxton and Trench Holding Corp.
...a policy of holding accountable attorneys who fail to abide by acceptable standards of professional conduct. 7 See Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.Ct.App.1989) (duty owed by attorney to client is one of "that degree of skill, knowledge, and judgment ordinarily possessed by a ......
-
Martinez v. Badis
...v. Lininger, 87 Colo. 401, 405, 288 P. 633, 636 (1930); McCafferty v. Musat, 817 P.2d 1039, 1044 (Colo.App.1990); Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.App.1989); Kitto v. Gilbert, 39 Colo.App. 374, 383, 570 P.2d 544, 552 Mudd v. Dorr, 40 Colo.App. 74, 76, 574 P.2d 97, 99 (1977). T......
-
Moore v. Lubnau
...existed and that summary judgment was appropriate. Rice v. Hartman, Fawal & Spina, 582 So.2d 464, 465 (Ala.1991); Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.Ct.App.1989). Ms. Moore's second issue on appeal is that the judge erred by not granting her motion for a rehearing of the summary......
-
Representing the Debtor: Counsel Beware!
...People v. McMichael, 609 P.2d 633 (Colo. 1980). 4. McCafferty v. Musat, 817 P.2d 1039, 1043 (Colo.App. 1990); Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.App. 1989). 5. E.g., In re Jackson, 92 Bankr. 987 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1988); Banks v. Hendershott, 719 P.2d 484 (Or.App. 1986). 6. Sanford......
-
Legal Malpractice Under Colorado Law
...245 (Colo. 2013). [10] COLJI-Civ. 15:21 (2022). See also McCafferty v. Musat, 817 P.2d 1039, 1044 (Colo.App. 1990); Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo. App. 1989) ("The measure of the duty owed by an attorney to his client is that he must employ that degree of skill, knowledge, ......
-
The Physician's Duty to Refer to a Specialist
...treatment had worsened patient's condition). 11. Salazar, supra, note 9 at 389--90. 12. See Melville, supra note 1; Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849, 850 (Colo.App. 1989) (legal malpractice) (expert testimony may not be necessary if the issues are so simple, or "the dereliction of duty s......
-
The Evolving Doctrine of Informed Consent in Colorado
...and should help mitigate the current legal malpractice insurance crisis. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. Boigegrain v. Gilbert, 784 P.2d 849 (Colo.App. 1989); McCafferty v. Musat, 817 P.2d 1039 (Colo.App. 1990). 2. Myers v. Beem, 712 P.2d 1092 (Colo.App. 1985). 3. 118 Cal.Rptr. 62......