Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** SATBIR PAUL ET AL. v. RICHARD M. GORDON ET AL. (AC 19881)
O'Connell, C. J., and Foti and Zarella, Js.1 Submitted on briefs March 2--officially released July 11, 2000 Counsel

Michael A. D'Onofrio, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Michael S. Lynch, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion

O'CONNELL, C. J. This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiffs2 appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant.3 The sole question is whether expert testimony was necessary in the malpractice action to establish the negligence of the defendant in his handling of the underlying summary process action. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, expert testimony is not required, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are necessary for a resolution of this appeal. The defendant is

an attorney admitted to practice law in this state, and the plaintiffs were his clients in connection with the negotiation of a lease with an option to buy property located in Bethel. The plaintiffs, who were already occupying the property, had deposited $30,000 toward the purchase price when a dispute arose concerning certain property repairs. In reliance on the defendant's advice, the plaintiffs stopped paying rent to the landlord-seller, who subsequently commenced a summary process action and served them with a notice to quit possession. The plaintiffs turned the notice over to the defendant, who said that he would ``handle it.''4 Despite numerous inquiries, the plaintiffs received no further communication from the defendant. The plaintiffs were ultimately evicted from the premises and lost their $30,000 deposit. A subsequent investigation disclosed that a judgment of default for failure to appear had been rendered against the plaintiffs in the summary process action. The defendant never notified the plaintiffs of any court dates or of the judgment rendered against them. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced a legal malpractice action against the defendant. The plaintiffs did not disclose the names of any expert witnesses whom they intended to call as required by Practice Book

Download Paul v. Gordon.pdf

Connecticut Law