Ackerly and Brown, LLP v. Smithies
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
The defendant Maura C. Smithies 1 appeals from the judgment, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Ackerly & Brown, LLP. On appeal, Maura Smithies claims that the court improperly concluded that expert testimony was required for her claim of legal malpractice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are necessary for our resolution of Maura Smithies’ appeal. Attorney Michael Sconyers, a partner in the plaintiff law firm, represented Maura Smithies and her husband, the defendant Richard Smithies, in a lawsuit involving…
3Cases cited21 opinions
- Davis v. MargolisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Dubreuil v. WittConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Paul v. GordonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- DiStefano v. MilardoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Vanliner Insurance v. FayConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by5 opinions
- Kosiorek v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Moore v. CroneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Zenon v. MossyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Law Offices of Robert K. Walsh, LLC v. NatarajanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2012