Phil Rosemann v. Martin Sigillito, 785 F.3d 1175

Rosemann hired attorney Martin Sigillito to structure international investments and paid him to form a Belize company (Braithwaite) and to handle a $5 million loan to a Turkish contractor (Metis).
Sigillito assured Rosemann the loan was guaranteed by NATO contracts and that the investment was risk-free; Rosemann transferred $15.6 million to Sigillito, who routed $5 million to Metis and diverted other funds.
Metis defaulted; attempts to recover failed, Braithwaite’s interest was assigned to a company owned by Sigillito, and the loan remains largely unpaid.
After Sigillito’s later criminal convictions, Rosemann sued for legal malpractice (professional negligence), alleging pre-loan and post-default negligence in preparing/handling the promissory note and protecting the loan collateral.
The district court converted Sigillito’s in limine/motion-to-strike filings into a summary-judgment motion, found Rosemann had not designated an expert to establish the applicable standard of care, and granted summary judgment for Sigillito.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove legal malpractice	Rosemann: claim rests on Sigillito’s false representation about NATO guarantees; lay testimony suffices	Sigillito: Missouri law requires expert proof of standard of care in attorney-malpractice cases	Held: Expert testimony required; summary judgment affirmed
Whether negligence was "clear and palpable" (exception to expert requirement)	Rosemann: the misrepresentation was obvious to lay jurors	Sigillito: the alleged failures involve technical standards beyond lay understanding	Held: Exception not met; matters were technical and needed expert proof
Whether the claim could be treated as negligent misrepresentation (avoiding expert rule)	Rosemann: alternatively sought negligent misrepresentation which needs no expert	Sigillito: the allegations arise from attorney’s professional performance and thus are malpractice	Held: Claim is professional negligence in substance; negligent-misrepresentation theory not permitted
Whether district court erred converting filings into summary-judgment motion	Rosemann: opposed conversion on appeal	Sigillito: conversion was appropriate given court notice and Rosemann’s failure to object earlier	Held: Conversion was permissible; no reversible error

Ostrander v. O’Banion, 152 S.W.3d 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (expert testimony generally required to define professional standard of care)
Roberts v. Sokol, 330 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (attorney-malpractice requires proof of skill and diligence standard)
Zweifel v. Zenge & Smith, 778 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) (exception: expert not required when negligence is clear and palpable)
Hart v. Steele, 416 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. 1967) (explaining common-knowledge exception to expert requirement)
Jaeger v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., 714 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1983) (examples where lay jurors can assess negligence without expert)
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., 392 F.2d 472 (8th Cir. 1968) (contract/specification failures may fall within lay comprehension)
Donahue v. Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., 900 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. banc 1995) (claims based on negligent performance of professional services are malpractice)
Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1997) (if breach can be framed as malpractice, legal-malpractice label controls)
Freight House Lofts Condo Ass’n v. VSI Meter Servs., Inc., 402 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of negligence under Missouri law)