Leibel v. Johnson

Citation728 S.E.2d 554,12 FCDR 1888,291 Ga. 180
Decision Date18 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. S11G0557.,S11G0557.
PartiesLEIBEL et al. v. JOHNSON.
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

291 Ga. 180
728 S.E.2d 554
12 FCDR 1888

LEIBEL et al.
v.
JOHNSON.

No. S11G0557.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 18, 2012.


[728 S.E.2d 555]


Michael J. Goldman, Christine Lupo Mast, Joseph Hall Wieseman, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Atlanta, for appellant.

Richard L. Brittain, Wendell Raleigh Bird, Bird, Loechl, Brittain & McCants, Atlanta, Jenny Elizabeth Jensen, Richard Earl Harris, Jones, Jensen & Harris, Norcross, for appellee.


MELTON, Justice.

[291 Ga. 180]After a jury returned a verdict for Dr. Mary Johnson on her legal malpractice claim against Steven K. Leibel, Leibel filed a motion for JNOV and a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion for JNOV, but granted the motion for new trial. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of Leibel's motion for new trial but affirmed the denial of the motion for JNOV. See generally Johnson v. Leibel, 307 Ga.App. 32, 703 S.E.2d 702 (2010). In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the admissibility of testimony by Johnson's expert on the issue of causation. Specifically, in Division 2, the Court of Appeals concluded that, in a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that “but for the attorney's negligence in the underlying case, the plaintiff would have prevailed,” and that, although a party cannot generally bolster his case with expert testimony as to the ultimate issue when the jury could reach the same conclusion independently of the opinion of others, such a prohibition does not extend to those cases in which a jury requires expert testimony as to the issue of causation. Id. at 38(2), 703 S.E.2d 702. Citing the pattern [291 Ga. 181]jury instruction on legal malpractice claims,1 the Court of Appeals then concluded that expert testimony is “admissible to prove proximate cause in those legal malpractice cases in which a lay person could not competently determine whether or not the negligence of the attorney proximately caused the plaintiff's damages, i.e., whether or not the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action.” Id., citing Ross v. Edwards, 253 Ga.App. 773, 774, 560 S.E.2d 343 (2002).2 This Court granted Leibel's petition for certiorari to assess the propriety of the Court of Appeals' ruling, and, for the reasons that follow, we reverse.

“In a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) employment of the defendant attorney, (2) failure of the attorney to exercise ordinary care, skill and diligence, and (3) that such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.” (Citations omitted.) Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer P.C., 265 Ga. 374, 375(2)(a), 453 S.E.2d 719 (1995). The first element is not in dispute in the present case, and,

[w]ith respect to the ‘ordinary care, skill and diligence’ element, the law imposes upon persons performing professional services

[728 S.E.2d 556]

the duty to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care, as determined by the degree of skill and care ordinarily employed by their respective professions under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances.

(Citations, punctuation, and emphasis omitted). Id. Because the second element of the test involves answering the question whether certain professional standards have been met, “except in clear and palpable cases...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Lechter v. Aprio, LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 30, 2021
    ..."ordinary care, skill and diligence" and "such negligence was the proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff." Leibel v. Johnson , 291 Ga. 180, 728 S.E.2d 554, 555 (2012). In support of their malpractice claim against the Aprio Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that in providing professional s......
  • In re
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2013
    ...professions under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances.(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Leibel v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 180, 181, 728 S.E.2d 554 (2012). (a) Anderson's malpractice claim is premised, in part, on her contention that Jones negotiated a $4.5 million global settle......
  • Rollins v. Smith
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2019
    ...must show that, but for the attorney’s negligence in the underlying case, the plaintiff would have prevailed. Leibel v. Johnson , 291 Ga. 180, 181-182, 728 S.E.2d 554 (2012) (citations and punctuation omitted). Competing expert testimony regarding whether an attorney’s actions fell below th......
  • Res-Ga McDonough, LLC v. Taylor English Duma LLP
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 30, 2017
    ...(3) that such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Leibel v. Johnson, 291 Ga. 180, 181, 728 S.E.2d 554 (2012). And "[i]n order to establish the final element, the plaintiff must show that, but for the attorney's negligence in t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT