Cited by

But such testimony is not required when “the conduct complained of can be evaluated adequately by a jury in the absence of expert testimony.” (quoting Hill v. Okay Constr.

Minnesota law makes clear that, “[w]hen a case does not involve damage to or loss of a cause of action, but instead involves transactional malpractice,” the but -for element is modified, and “require[s] a plaintiff to show that, ‘but for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the underlying transaction than the result obtained.’” (quoting Jerry’s Enters., d at 819); see also Hill, d at 117 (concludi ng that a party was not required to show “but for” cau

The supreme court’s offers guidance on this issue.

Whether the statute applies to a case is a threshold issue for the district court to decide by examining “each element of the prima facie case of malpractice.” –49 (Minn. 2015)

However, the supreme court has “read a limitation into the safe-harbor provision” to “give life to the second affidavit requirement.”

2 In attorney-malpractice cases, expert testimony is typically “required to establish a standard of care applicable to an attorney whose conduct is alleged to have been negligent, and further to establish whether the conduct deviated from that standard.” Guzick v. Kimball , (quotation omitted).

(alteration in original) (quoting Blue Water Corp., Inc. v. O ’Toole, ).

“[W]hether expert testimony is required to establish a prima facie case is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” -47 5 (Minn. 2015).

“[W]hether expert testimony is required to establish a prima facie case is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” –47 (Minn. 2015).

On September 4, 2015, the district court granted respondents’ request for reconsideration in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s