Travenia v. Law Office of Harry E. Hudson CA3, C092296

Plaintiff Karen Travenia sued her former attorney Harry E. Hudson (and his law firm) for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud based on his representation in her sexual‑harassment action against the Department of Justice that resulted in a settlement.
At the start of trial, after Travenia’s opening statement (which referenced emails, letters, settlement papers, allegations of poor communication, advice about taxability, threats to withdraw, and financial loss from retirement), Hudson moved for nonsuit.
The trial court asked whether Travenia would present an expert on the attorney standard of care; she had no attorney expert and argued an exception applied. The court ruled expert testimony was required for the claims and granted nonsuit, dismissing the case.
Travenia appealed; the appellate court reinstated and accepted the appeal despite a late designation of record and addressed the merits.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit, holding Travenia’s opening statement did not establish an attorney breach so clear that expert testimony was unnecessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal had been dismissed for Travenia’s late filing of the designation of record	Travenia maintained the appeal was not dismissed and she later filed the designation	Hudson contended the court had already dismissed the appeal for noncompliance and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction	Court: appeal was not dismissed; exercised discretion to allow the appeal to proceed because the record and briefs were filed
Whether nonsuit was proper given Travenia presented no expert on attorney standard of care	Travenia argued expert testimony was not required where the attorney’s failure is so clear; she pointed to documentary evidence and alleged breaches during settlement negotiations and communications	Hudson argued Travenia presented no evidence to support malpractice/fraud claims at opening; he had an expert and nonsuit was proper	Court: affirmed nonsuit — claims required expert testimony absent a rare, obvious breach; Travenia did not show such an exception

Unigard Ins. Group v. O’Flaherty & Belgum, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (defendant entitled to nonsuit when plaintiff’s evidence cannot permit jury to find for plaintiff)
Paul v. Layne & Bowler Corp., 9 Cal. 2d 561 (Cal. 1937) (nonsuit review requires consideration of complaint and counsel statements)
Curtis v. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, 110 Cal. App. 4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (de novo review of nonsuit)
Lipscomb v. Krause, 87 Cal. App. 3d 970 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (attorney standard of care typically requires expert testimony)
Davis v. Damrell, 119 Cal. App. 3d 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (matters not within common knowledge of layperson generally require expert testimony for professional negligence)
Wilkinson v. Rives, 116 Cal. App. 3d 641 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (exception where attorney failure is so clear that no expert is required)
Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (example of exception: abject failure to research a point of law)
Goebel v. Lauderdale, 214 Cal. App. 3d 1502 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (example of exception: advising client to commit a Penal Code violation)
Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (pro per litigants are held to the same procedural and substantive rules as represented parties)