Kuehl v. Koskoff

Except in obvious situations, expert testimony generally is required to establish the element of causation in a legal malpractice case. See Bozelko v. Papastavros , 323 Conn. 275 , 284-85, 147 A.3d 1023 (2016). "Because a determination of what result should have occurred if the attorney had not been negligent usually is beyond the field of ordinary knowledge and experience possessed by a juror, expert testimony generally will be necessary to provide the essential nexus between the attorney's [alleged] error and the plaintiff's damages." Id., at 285 , 147 A.3d 1023 .

In this legal malpractice…