## Facts

- In 1969, Dr. Rogers H. Wright, Dr. Alan J. Glasser, and Samuel Lecocq planned a business offering Southern California skin-diving cruises.
- They agreed to buy the *Kona Sea*, an 83-foot converted Coast Guard vessel, first for $43,000, then renegotiated to $37,000 after a survey found hull damage; a written purchase agreement was reached on December 15, 1969.
- Concerned about title and encumbrances, plaintiffs consulted attorney Richard G. Wilson, who referred them (with consent) to Reed M. Williams, an attorney who held himself out as a maritime (admiralty) law specialist; Wilson informed Williams the buyers wanted the vessel free of liens and mortgages.
- Williams assisted with consummating the purchase.
- The vessel previously had been owned by a Mexican national; federal coastwise-trade restrictions under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 prevented lawful use of such a vessel in the plaintiffs’ intended coastwise passenger business absent compliance with federal requirements.
- Plaintiffs alleged Williams negligently failed to discover and advise them of the restriction, rendering the vessel unusable for their planned operation.
- At trial, plaintiffs presented no expert testimony defining the standard of care for an admiralty specialist or showing Williams’s conduct fell below that standard.

## Issues

1. In a legal malpractice action involving highly specialized legal services (maritime/admiralty), must the plaintiff present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care and its breach?
2. Did the trial court properly grant judgment for the defendant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence due to the absence of expert proof?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for Williams.
- Because the alleged negligence concerned specialized maritime law and was not within common knowledge, expert testimony was required to establish the professional standard of care and a deviation from it.
- Plaintiffs’ failure to offer expert testimony meant they did not carry their burden of proof.
- The trial court therefore acted properly in entering judgment for the defendant under § 631.8 after weighing plaintiffs’ evidence at the close of their case.

## Legal Principles

- In legal malpractice actions, expert testimony is ordinarily required to prove the applicable standard of care and breach, except where negligence is within the common-knowledge exception.
- When the claimed malpractice concerns performance of highly specialized legal services, the standard of care is not a matter of common knowledge and generally must be established through expert evidence.
- In a bench trial, Code of Civil Procedure § 631.8 permits the court, at the close of plaintiff’s case, to weigh the evidence and enter judgment for the defendant if the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the attorney because the plaintiffs, alleging malpractice in a specialized maritime-law matter, failed to present expert testimony establishing the standard of care for a reasonably prudent specialist and proof of breach, making § 631.8 judgment appropriate.


Wright v. Williams, 47 Cal. App. 3d 802, 121 Cal. Rptr. 194 (Ct. App. 1975)