Dubreuil v. Witt
| Decision Date | 23 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 17143.,17143. |
| Citation | 271 Conn. 782,860 A.2d 698 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alphonse T. DUBREUIL et al. v. Otto P. WITT et al. |
Otto P. Witt, pro se, the appellant (named defendant).
Joseph X. Du Mond, Hartford, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether, in this legal malpractice action tried to the court, the trial court's knowledge of the standard of care and of what constitutes a breach of that standard obviated the plaintiff's burden to present expert testimony regarding the defendant's breach of the standard of care. The named defendant, Otto P. Witt,1 appeals, following our grant of certification,2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs, Alphonse T. Dubreuil and Marilyn B. Dubreuil,3 rendered after a trial to the court. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that expert testimony was unnecessary to establish that he had violated the standard of care. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The plaintiffs brought this legal malpractice action in two counts against the defendant. The first count alleged that the defendant's failure to appear at court proceedings on three separate occasions while representing the plaintiffs in a collection action brought by Deedy Construction Company constituted negligence on the part of the defendant and resulted in a judgment against the plaintiffs in the amount of $67,277.85, and the placement of a lien to secure the judgment on property belonging to the plaintiffs. The second count alleged that the defendant's negligence constituted violations of rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that his negligence and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct amounted to breach of contract.
Following a trial to the court in April, 1998, the trial court, Hon. D. Michael Hurley, judge trial referee, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs without hearing expert testimony regarding whether the defendant had breached the standard of care because the court determined that it did not need such testimony to make its ruling. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion by limiting his cross-examination of Alphonse T. Dubreuil, and that the trial court improperly had found that legal malpractice occurred even though the plaintiffs had failed to present any expert testimony to that effect. Dubreuil v. Witt, 65 Conn.App. 35, 36, 781 A.2d 503 (2001). The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on the ground that the trial court improperly had limited the defendant's cross-examination of Alphonse T. Dubreuil; id., at 45-46, 781 A.2d 503; and accordingly declined to reach the issue of whether the trial court's finding of legal malpractice, despite the plaintiffs' failure to present expert testimony, was improper. Id., at 46 n. 5, 781 A.2d 503.
On remand, the matter again was tried to the court. The trial court, Hon. Joseph J. Purtill, judge trial referee, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, again without hearing expert testimony regarding whether the defendant had breached the standard of care. In its memorandum of decision, the trial court stated that, pursuant to the decision in Paul v. Gordon, 58 Conn.App. 724, 727-28, 754 A.2d 851 (2000), the
On appeal, although it affirmed the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005)
...the standard of proper professional skill or care"; Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 420, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004); "[t]here is an exception to this rule . . . where there is such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect is clear ......
-
Grimm v. Fox
...to establish that element of his claim. Relying on Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 421–22, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004), in which the Appellate Court indicated that “there may be no expert who knows more about the practice of law before the Superior Cou......
-
Stohlts v. Gilkinson
...raised therein." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 425, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004). Although the plaintiffs did claim that they were harassed by the defendants, they did not allege in their amended complaint that ther......
-
Ackerly and Brown, Llp v. Smithies
...practice eliminates the need for expert testimony. Cf. Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 421-22, 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A.2d 698 (2004). Instead, the court properly concluded that the general rule requiring expert testimony in a legal malpractice action applied, an......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...(E.D.N.Y. 2003) 1-7:3.2 Dubois v. Gradco Systems, 136 F.R.D. 341 (D. Conn. 1991) 2-10 Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn. App. 410 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782 (2004) 1-2:2, 8-2:2.1 Duguay v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., NO. CV03-391344, 2003 WL 21149855 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2003) 3......
-
Tort Developments in 2006
...161. Id. at 296. 162. Id. 163. Id. at 297-98. 164. Id. at 299. 165. Id. at 299. 166. 80 Conn. App. 410, 835 A. 2d 477 (2003), affirmed, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A. 2d 698 (2004). 167. Dixon, supra, note 159, at 299. 168. 94 Conn. App. 733, 734, 894 A. 2d 367, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 915, 899 A.2d......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-2 NEGLIGENCE
...F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Conn. 2011); Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 170 (1988).[62] Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn. App. 410, 421-22 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782 (2004).[63] See Paul v. Gordon, 58 Conn. App. 724, 727 (2000). [64] Pagan v. Gonzalez, 113 Conn. App. 135, 141 (2009).[65] Moore v. Crone, ......
-
Tort Developments in 2008
...it from where the trial judge's knowledge of the rules of practice eliminates the necessity of expert opinion. See Dubreuil v. Witt, 271 Conn. 782, 860 A. 2d 698 (2004). 117. 108 Conn. App. 760, 950 A.2d 539 (2008). 118.Id. at 762-63. 119.Id. at 764. 120.Id. at 766. 121.106 Conn. App. 379, ......