Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog
Courts are consistent that a legal malpractice plaintiff must have an expert witness to bring a legal malpractice claim. This is a barrier to brining malpractice claims, but it makes sense given that the jury must be informed of the standard of care. If you intend to bring a claim against your lawyer, make sure that you have considered this cost before the case begins.
Harooni v. Law Offices of David S. Lin (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. 2026)
Overview
The Court of Appeal affirmed a nonsuit judgment against plaintiff Nahideh Harooni in her legal malpractice action against her former attorney, David S. Lin, holding that she could not proceed to trial without a legal malpractice expert witness.
Key Facts
- Lin represented Harooni in an underlying dental malpractice action
- Lin retained a dental expert, but that expert concluded no dental malpractice occurred
- Lin nonetheless filed an opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, though without a supporting expert declaration
- Harooni lost the underlying case at summary judgment
- Harooni’s theory: Lin was negligent for failing to seek a second, more favorable expert after the first rendered an unfavorable opinion
- In the malpractice suit, Harooni designated two dentists as experts but failed to timely designate a legal malpractice expert
Procedural History
- Trial court granted Lin’s motion for nonsuit (CCP § 581c) after Harooni declined to give an opening statement at the bench trial
- Harooni’s late motion to add a legal ethics expert was denied and not challenged on appeal
Holdings & Analysis
1. Procedural Challenge (Nonsuit vs. Motion for Judgment) Harooni argued Lin should have brought a motion for judgment under CCP § 631.8 rather than a nonsuit under § 581c. The court rejected this, finding the nonsuit was properly brought after Harooni declined to make an opening statement, squarely within § 581c’s scope.
2. Expert Testimony Requirement The court reaffirmed the general rule that legal malpractice requires expert testimony to establish the standard of care and causation. The critical question was whether the “common knowledge” exception applied — i.e., whether Lin’s alleged negligence was so obvious that a layperson could evaluate it without expert help.
3. Common Knowledge Exception Rejected The court held the exception did not apply. Whether an attorney has a duty to seek a second expert after the first renders an unfavorable opinion is not within the common knowledge of laypersons — it is a nuanced professional judgment call. Harooni cited no authority supporting such a duty, let alone one placing it within lay understanding.
4. Bench Trial Argument Rejected Harooni’s novel argument — that the expert requirement should not apply in a bench trial because a judge already understands attorney duties — was dismissed as unsupported by any authority.
Key Takeaway
Because Harooni failed to timely designate a legal malpractice expert, and her claim did not fall within the narrow common knowledge exception, nonsuit was proper. The judgment for Lin was affirmed with costs awarded to respondent.