Allegations in a legal malpractice suit that a lawyer failed to obtain discovery in a timely manner are not so readily apparent that the plaintiff is exempt from obtaining expert testimony on proximate cause, the Appellate Division ruled Friday.
The appeals court affirmed dismissal of a malpractice suit filed against a matrimonial lawyer in connection with the divorce of two other lawyers. Cathy Mitchell, who was represented by Gerald Skey in her divorce case, claimed he was negligent for failing to obtain bank records and billing records from her former husband, Richard Miller, in a timely manner and for failing to depose Miller until a week before trial. She also claimed Skey had a conflict of interest by continuing to represent her after she told him she intended to sue him for malpractice.
