Roger Hamilton, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Richard A. Sommers, Melissa E. Neville and Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, Prof…

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action against attorneys who jointly represented three co-defendants in a bee-site dispute. It held the circuit court abused its discretion by striking the plaintiff's expert for resting on a national rather than locality-based standard of care, announced that South Dakota's standard of care is the competence and diligence normally exercised by lawyers in similar circumstances (with locality, custom, and special skills relevant only where applicable), affirmed collateral estoppel confined to whether the client signed a conflict-of-interest waiver, and held the circuit court improperly weighed evidence on proximate cause at summary judgment. Chief Justice Gilbertson dissented: he would have retained the locality rule as a Rule 702 expert-qualification requirement, found no abuse of discretion in striking the expert, and affirmed summary judgment.