California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Jeffer, Mangels & Butler v. Glickman, 234 Cal.App.3d 1432, 286 Cal.Rptr. 243 (Cal. App. 1991):
The similarity between medical malpractice and legal malpractice actions is rooted in the nature of malpractice. The standard of care must be established so the jury can understand the "propriety of particular conduct by the practitioner in particular instances because such standard and skill is not a matter of general knowledge." (Lysick v. Walcom, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d at p. 156, 65 Cal.Rptr. 406.) The similarity between medicine and law, on the other hand, is rooted in the fact both are professions. As the above discussion illustrates with regard to three reasons the courts have chosen to interpret section 720 liberally in the area of medical malpractice, the practice of law and the practice of medicine are analogous. The standards of reviewing the qualifications of an expert witness for a medical malpractice action will therefore serve to guide us in reviewing the qualifications of an expert witness for a legal malpractice action.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.