Robert Grimm v. John Wayne Fox

Summary

The court affirmed judgment for the defendants in the legal-malpractice action because the plaintiff failed to disclose expert testimony needed to establish that their appellate representation breached the applicable professional standard of care. The court held that critical comments in an earlier appellate opinion about the record and briefing did not themselves establish negligence, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in deciding the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment immediately before trial. PALMER, J., concurring, agreed with the result but would have affirmed on the alternative ground that expert testimony was required to prove proximate causation.