Hickey v. Scott
796 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Hickey sues Scott for unpaid attorneys' fees after successfully representing her in an EEOC sexual harassment case.
- Scott counterclaims for legal malpractice and fiduciary breach due to allegedly unreasonable billing and failing to request Laffey rates.
- Court analyzes three evidentiary questions: expert testimony on standard of care for not petitioning Laffey rates; legal criteria for Laffey rates; proximate cause of injury.
- Court allows expert testimony only on the breach of standard-of-care issue (not on legal criteria or proximate causation).
- Jury will be instructed on the law governing Laffey eligibility and decide whether a reasonable EEOC ALJ would have awarded Laffey rates if Hickey had sought them.
- Decision limits expert testimony for causation and legal criteria, preserving jury fact-finding for the remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to petition for Laffey rates breaches the standard of care | Hickey argues failure to petition breaches standard of care | Scott contends no clear breach or that it requires no expert | Yes, expert testimony allowed to define standard of care. |
| Whether Hickey satisfied the legal criteria for Laffey rates | Hickey satisfied criteria | Court should decide criteria; not a jury question | Legal criteria are for the court; jury decides satisfaction after instruction. |
| Whether Hickey's failure caused Scott injury (proximate causation) | Failure caused injury if Laffey rates would have been awarded | Jury should determine causation | No expert causation testimony; jury instructed on law and applies to facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203 (D.C. 1985) (establishes expert testimony required for standard of care unless obvious)
- O'Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337 (D.C. 1982) (standard of care not within common knowledge)
- Clay v. Deering, 618 A.2d 92 (D.C. 1992) (same principle on expert needed for malpractice)
- Rubens v. Mason, 387 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) (avoid expert causation testimony in case-within-a-case)
- Justice v. Carter, 972 F.2d 951 (8th Cir. 1992) (reasonableness standard for causation in malpractice)
- Piscitelli v. Friedenberg, 87 Cal. App.4th 953 (Cal. App. 2001) (rejects expert testimony on underlying outcome in malpractice case)
- Tarleton v. Arnstein & Lehr, 719 So.2d 325 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (jury decides outcome in malpractice case within a case)
- Helmbrecht v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 94, 362 N.W.2d 118 (Wis. 1985) (proximate cause in malpractice to be decided by jury on law applied)