The plaintiff could not prove his Tennessee legal malpractice claim without expert proof that the defendant law firm breached the standard of care.
In Mamadou v. Gatti, Keltner, Bienvenu & Montesi, P.C., No. CT-3240-23 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff was represented by the defendant law firm in a workers’ compensation case. In a trial before an administrative judge, the plaintiff was awarded around $101,000. That amount was increased slightly by the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The last sentence of the commission’s opinion stated that the “matter [was] remanded to the Administrative Judge for all further proceedings as may be necessary in this claim.” When the award was disbursed to the plaintiff, he signed a document stating that he was satisfied with the services he received from the defendant law firm. Later, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint claiming that the defendant’s representation in the workers’ compensation claim fell below the applicable standard of care.
The defendant law firm submitted an affidavit from one of its attorneys stating that they complied with the standard of care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on several bases, including that the plaintiff did not have the required expert proof to support his claim. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion.
While the plaintiff raised several issues on appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the lack of expert proof was dispositive of the case. A plaintiff claiming legal malpractice must prove the relevant standard of care by expert testimony. While there is a very narrow exception when there is “clear and palpable negligence,” this exception applies only in extreme cases. (internal citation omitted). Although the plaintiff argued that this case fit within this exception, the Court disagreed.
The plaintiff’s allegations of legal malpractice revolved around “the proper legal effect and interpretation of the [commission] order, the amount of benefits that [the plaintiff] was legally entitled to under Mississippi law, and the duties of an attorney in light of the [commission] order and all the surrounding circumstances.” The Court wrote that these issues were “simply not within the common knowledge of laypersons,” and that expert proof was required. Because the plaintiff did not have expert proof, summary judgment was appropriate.
This memorandum opinion is a reminder that a legal malpractice plaintiff needs expert proof to support his claim in almost all cases.
This memorandum opinion was released three months after oral arguments in this case.