The federal district court in Spokane recently surveyed Washington law on the need for an expert to support a legal malpractice claim.
Peterson v. Best, 2023 WL 8791674 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2023) (unpublished), grew out of complex federal qui tam litigation. The defendant lawyer had represented the plaintiff in a related set of qui tam claims in the Eastern District. The claims were eventually dismissed and the target of the claims was later awarded over $100,000 in attorney fees. The plaintiff then sued his lawyer for malpractice, arguing that the lawyer had insufficiently investigated the qui tam claims. Despite the complexity of the underlying qui tam litigation, the plaintiff did not disclose an expert on the standard of care before the discovery deadline in the malpractice case. The defendant lawyer, therefore, moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim failed for want of an expert on the standard of care. The court agreed and dismissed the case.
In doing so, the court discussed both the general rule in Washington requiring a standard of care expert when the underlying matter is complex and the exception when the nature of the error is readily understood by a lay jury. In this instance, the court noted the complicated nature of the qui tam claims both factually and legally. The court, therefore, had no trouble distinguishing the case at hand from, for example, a simple calendaring error leading to a missed statute of limitation. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s late proffer of an expert in opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion and struck the late disclosure.
While not plowing any new legal ground, Peterson is a useful summary of Washington law on the general need for an expert to support a legal malpractice claim and a pointed reminder of the result if one is not timely disclosed.
