Pearl v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 5412,5412 |
| Citation | 13 Conn.App. 170,534 A.2d 1257 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jason PEARL v. Norman NELSON. |
Joseph Neiman, Newington, filed a brief for appellant (defendant).
Robert L. Hirtle, Jr., and Randall Hayes, Hartford, filed a brief for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and SPALLONE and STOUGHTON, JJ.
This is an action seeking payment for legal services rendered to the defendant. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging malpractice by the plaintiff. Judgment was rendered after verdicts for the plaintiff on his complaint and on the defendant's counterclaim. The defendant appealed to this court. We find no error.
The defendant retained the services of the plaintiff, a member of the Connecticut bar, on July 13, 1984, to obtain a dissolution of his marriage and a property settlement. The plaintiff instituted an action for dissolution and, on December 17, 1984, dissolution was obtained. The defendant paid the plaintiff $1973.42 for legal services and disbursements, but refused to pay the balance of the plaintiff's final bill of $15,000. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought this action in three counts against the defendant seeking payment. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he had rendered professional services the value of which was $15,000 and that $13,200 was then still owing, that he had relied upon a promise by the defendant to pay for the services rendered, and that the defendant had been unjustly enriched. The defendant's counterclaim, sounding in malpractice, sought the return of the sums paid as fees, and other damages. He alleged that he had instructed the plaintiff to obtain a dissolution upon the ground of desertion, that the plaintiff had instead sought a dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and that this had resulted in a costly property settlement.
The jury returned a general verdict on the complaint for the plaintiff in the amount of $11,000. On the counterclaim, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant has briefed three claims of error. His claims are (1) that the court erred in allowing expert testimony as to the reasonable value of the services rendered instead of limiting the evidence to a determination of the contract price, (2) that the court erred in failing to charge on breach of contract when the counterclaim alleged such a breach along with a claim of malpractice, and (3) that the court erred in ruling that an expert witness is required in a legal malpractice case based upon an alleged breach of contract and in directing a verdict because such an expert was not produced by the defendant.
The agreement between the parties concerning the fee to be charged, as stated in the defendant's reply brief, provided: "$1,000 plus expenses if the suit were not contested and either 'more' if Mr. Pearl's version is believed or 'a little more' if Mr. Nelson's version prevails in the trier's mind." It is apparent that the action for dissolution of marriage was not tried as an uncontested matter and, thus, that the agreement between the parties did not fix the amount of the fee. Counsel for the plaintiff called, as an expert witness, a practicing lawyer, whose qualifications were admitted, to testify as to the reasonableness of the fee charged. Counsel for the defendant objected that the complaint did not claim recovery in quantum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deleo v. Nusbaum
...to a lay person." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Paul v. Gordon, 58 Conn.App. 724, 727, 754 A.2d 851 (2000); Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn.App. 170, 173, 534 A.2d 1257 (1988). For example, a layperson may be expected to understand that an attorney's failure to attend court proceedings as di......
-
Ackerly and Brown, Llp v. Smithies
...Celentano v. Grudberg, 76 Conn.App. 119, 126, 818 A.2d 841, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904, 823 A.2d 1220 (2003); Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 170, 173, 534 A.2d 1257 (1988). Simply put, "[i]n legal malpractice litigation, expert evidence is required for most cases but not for all." St. Onge......
-
Evans v. Warden
...Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 317, 528 A.2d 1123 (1987); Somma v. Gracey, 15 Conn.App. 371, 374-75, 544 A.2d 668 (1988); Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn.App. 170, 173, 534 A.2d 1257 (1988) (legal malpractice); we have yet to apply this rule in the context of a Strickland We are not persuaded that we shou......
-
Febbroriello v. Febbroriello, 7272
...knowledge of what would be a reasonable attorney's fee for services which are fairly stated and described." Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn.App. 170, 172, 534 A.2d 1257 (1988). The trial court was free to exercise its discretion in determining that counsel fees should be awarded and that the figur......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...1995) 3-3 Paul v. Gordon, 58 Conn. App. 724 (2000) 8-2:2.1, 8-2:2.2 Pavone v. West, 22 Conn. App. 623 (2004) 2-2 Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 170 (1988) 8-2:2.1 Peck v. Glucksman, No. 106009737, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2506, 2011 WL 4953898 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2011) 7-1:1, 7-4:5.1......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-2 NEGLIGENCE
...Supp. 2d 88 (D. Conn. 2011) (attorney allegedly failed to uncover the full extent of spouse's finances in discovery) Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 170, 171 (1988) (judgment granted in favor of attorney for failing to follow client's instructions to obtain dissolution upon ground of deserti......