Central Cab Co. v. Clarke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, even without expert testimony, a jury could find that an attorney committed malpractice by failing to file a timely answer and allowing the entry of a default judgment against the client
• holding that, even without expert testimony, a jury could find that an attorney committed malpractice by failing to file a timely answer and allowing the entry of a default judgment against the client
• noting that in some attorney malpractice cases expert testimony is necessary, but holding that expert opinion testimony was not required in a case where the lawyer’s conduct was a “clear violation” of the duty of care owed to the client
• requiring no expert testimony to establish the standard of care in a legal malpractice case when the alleged breach was a lawyer’s failure to inform his client that he was terminating representation
• ordering additional proceedings where the client could prove that it had a meritorious defense in the underlying matter and thus the default judgment resulting from the attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of the client’s damages
• failure to agree on payment of retainer does not preclude an attorney-client relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).