Linda E. Walsh v. Richard J. Walsh, Warrenn C. Anderson, A16-405

Background

Linda Walsh, after initiating and later dismissing a divorce, signed conflict waivers and retained (and later was represented by) the law firm FAMB, which prepared trusts and an LLC that placed farm property outside the marital estate.
Walsh sued Richard Walsh, their son, FAMB, and attorney Warrenn Anderson alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty based on the creation of irrevocable trusts and related transactions.
Walsh produced an expert-review affidavit and a December 1, 2012 expert report describing duty and breach in detail but offering only two brief, conclusory statements on causation; the report was later incorporated into signed interrogatory answers.
Respondents moved to dismiss under Minn. Stat. § 544.42 for inadequate expert disclosure; the district court initially denied dismissal but granted reconsideration after the Minnesota Supreme Court decided Guzick v. Kimball.
On reconsideration the district court concluded the expert report failed to provide meaningful causation analysis required to qualify for the statute’s safe-harbor and dismissed Walsh’s malpractice and breach claims with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walsh satisfied Minn. Stat. § 544.42 expert-disclosure requirements for malpractice claims	Walsh argued her expert report, answers to interrogatories, and earlier affidavit provided sufficient expert opinion on duty, breach, causation, and damages	Respondents argued the expert disclosure lacked a meaningful summary of the expert’s opinion on causation and thus failed § 544.42	Court held the disclosure was adequate on duty and breach but insufficient on causation and therefore dismissal was proper under § 544.42 as construed in Guzick
Whether the report qualified for the 60-day safe-harbor to cure deficiencies	Walsh argued the report provided meaningful information beyond conclusory statements and thus should get safe-harbor cure opportunity	Respondents argued the report only implied causation and did not meet the narrow safe-harbor threshold	Held that Guzick/Brown-Wilbert require explicit causation analysis; report did not qualify for safe-harbor
Whether causation required expert testimony in this case	Walsh conceded proximate causation required expert testimony given the complexity of trust transactions	Respondents agreed expert testimony was required and that disclosure was deficient on that element	Court applied de novo review to the legal question and concluded expert proof of causation was required and the disclosure failed to summarize the expert’s causation opinion
Whether the district court erred by changing its ruling on reconsideration after Guzick	Walsh argued the court improperly altered its earlier denial of dismissal	Respondents argued reconsideration was appropriate in light of new controlling precedent (Guzick)	Court held reconsideration was proper; change in law justified revisiting the earlier ruling

Key Cases Cited

Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 2007) (expert-disclosure statute requires meaningful summary beyond conclusory statements to trigger safe-harbor)
Guzick v. Kimball, 869 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 2015) (reaffirmed narrow safe-harbor standard; affidavit must explicitly explain expert’s opinion on causation and each malpractice element requiring expert proof)
Hill v. Okay Constr. Co., 252 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1977) (lay jurors need not rely on expert testimony when they can evaluate attorney conduct themselves)
State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. App. 1998) (appellate court will not overturn established supreme court precedent)