Attorney obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice action wherein the plaintiffs' expert opined that the attorneys failed to retain the proper medical experts for a carbon monoxide toxic tort case

Attorney obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice action wherein the plaintiffs' expert opined that the attorneys failed to retain the proper medical experts for a carbon monoxide toxic tort case. At the conclusion of discovery,the attorney was successful on Summary Judgment in arguing that the plaintiffs' expert's opinion was net. That is, the plaintiffs' expert did not establish the standard of care of plaintiff's attorneys in toxic tort cases. The plaintiffs' expert opined there is a duty to shop for experts once a plaintiff's attorney receives an unfavorable opinion. The Trial Court disagreed, and granted our Summary Judgment Motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the opinion of the plaintiffs' expert was flawed, and did not represent the standard of care for plaintiff's attorneys in toxic tort cases in New Jersey. That is, the plaintiffs' expert had opined that once attorneys receive an unfavorable opinion, they have a duty to shop around for competent experts who could link the carbon monoxide exposure and its results to the incident. The Appellate Division ruled that it was not a deviation from the standard of care when the attorneys failed to shop for favorable expert opinions once unfavorable opinions were rendered. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs' expert's opinions on the standard of practice were not consistent with the standard and, therefore, were unacceptable and not admissible. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Court's Order for Summary Judgment in favor of the attorneys.