ADAM JEFFREY KATZ, P.A. AND ADAM J. KATZ
v.
ANIEL JEROME
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Expert testimony is not required in a legal malpractice action when the lawyer's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can resolve the issue as a matter of common knowledge.
[1] Expert testimony is not required to establish negligence in a legal malpractice action when the attorney's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the lawyer's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can resolve the issue as a matter of common knowledge”
Court's citation to Evans v. McDonald regarding when expert testimony is not required in legal malpractice actions
Adam Jeffrey Katz, P.A. and Adam J. Katz appealed a judgment in a legal malpractice action brought against them by Aniel Jerome in Palm Beach County c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ADAM JEFFREY KATZ, P.A., a Florida professional association,
and ADAM J. KATZ, individually,
Appellants,
v.
ANIEL JEROME,
Appellee.
No. 4D17-2835
[June 13, 2018]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cymonie S. Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CA011596XXXXMB.
Richard S. Lubliner of Lubliner Kish PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Evans v. McDonald, 313 F. App’x. 256, 257 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting expert testimony in legal malpractice action is not required where “the lawyer's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can resolve the issue as a matter of common knowledge”); Suritz v. Kelner, 155 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (finding expert testimony was unnecessary where jury could find the attorney was negligent based on the facts presented by the plaintiff). WARNER, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.