|
p0025 In an action for attorney malpractice based on the claim that the attorney was negligent in handling an arbitration, the question of what the arbitrator would have awarded if the attorney had not been negligent was properly submitted to a jury, but an expert's opinion about the answer is not admissible; relevant evidence that ordinarily would be inadmissible at a trial but was admissible at the arbitration should have been admitted for the jury's determination of what the arbitrators would have awarded had the attorney not been negligent.CitationPISCITELLI v FRIEDENBERG (Opt Out) 87 CA4 953 [See: EvC 805; American Motorists v Superior Court 68 CA4 864, T/AT 1/99; Ceriale v Superior Court 48 CA4 1629, T/AT 10/96; Mattco v Arthur Young 52 CA4 820, T/AT 3/97; Kurinij v Hanna 55 CA4 853, T/AT 7/97; Summers v AL Gilbert 69 CA4 1155, T/AT 3/99]
|
|
