|
0908 The fact that an attorney representing a wife in contested marital dissolution was in the process of forming a law partnership with an attorney who was simultaneously representing the husband justified the conclusion that the attorney was acting under a conflict of interest that violated the duties to the client; expert testimony is not required in an action for breach of an attorney's fiduciary duties; an attorney's failure to perform research before advising a client about an area of rapidly changing law is sufficiently within the jury's ken to make expert testimony unnecessary to establish that the attorney failed to act reasonably.CitationSTANLEY v RICHMOND (Partner Conflict) 35 CA4 1070 [See: Wright v Williams 47 CA3 802; Wilkinson v Rives 116 CA3 641; Goebel v Lauderdale 214 CA3 1502; Pierce v Lyman 1 CA4 1093; Mirabito v Liccardo 4 CA4 41]
|
