Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus, 932 N.W.2d 153

Zhang (pro se) sued former attorneys (James, Rasmus, Skolnick) for legal malpractice based on their handling of his malpractice claim against his divorce lawyer, Brown.
Skolnick (Minneapolis firm) entered a retainer to represent Zhang in the pending South Dakota malpractice litigation, advised him about sanctions, communicated with the South Dakota court, and Zhang voluntarily dismissed the malpractice suit against Brown.
Skolnick moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; alternatively moved for summary judgment (statute of limitations and lack of malpractice against Brown). Other defendants moved for summary judgment (including for Zhang’s failure to disclose expert testimony).
The circuit court dismissed Skolnick for lack of personal jurisdiction, and later granted summary judgment for all appellees (statute of limitations, lack of duty, and Zhang’s failure to disclose an expert).
Zhang also sought to amend his complaint to add fraud and related claims (denied as untimely) and requested court approval to use a Mandarin interpreter (court required motion and held a hearing; interpreter later approved).
Supreme Court reversed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Skolnick, but affirmed summary judgment for all appellees because Zhang failed to produce necessary expert evidence to establish legal malpractice against Brown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Skolnick	South Dakota court has jurisdiction because Skolnick contracted to represent Zhang in a SD suit and communicated with the SD court	Insufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to satisfy due process	Reversed: minimum contacts established (retainer, directed litigation activity); jurisdiction exists
Summary judgment on malpractice claims	Appellees committed malpractice in handling the malpractice suit against Brown	No admissible evidence that Brown committed malpractice; Zhang failed to disclose required expert testimony; statute of limitations/transfer of duty defenses	Affirmed: Zhang lacked expert evidence to prove the underlying malpractice against Brown, so malpractice claims against appellees fail
Motion to amend complaint to add fraud claim	Amendment necessary; fraud claim would toll/alter limitations	Untimely; could have been raised earlier; no prejudice shown because fraud reliance element absent if jurisdiction exists	Affirmed: denial not reversible; plaintiff cannot show detrimental reliance or prejudice
Requirement to seek court approval for interpreter	Court’s requirement delayed access to interpreter and prejudiced Zhang	Court properly required motion/hearing to vet interpreter competency and neutrality; standard practice	Affirmed: court acted within discretion; no demonstrated prejudice

Kustom Cycles, Inc. v. Bowyer, 857 N.W.2d 401 (S.D. 2014) (personal-jurisdiction standard and de novo review)
Daktronics, Inc. v. LBW Tech. Co., 737 N.W.2d 413 (S.D. 2007) (long-arm statute and due process analysis)
Marschke v. Wratislaw, 743 N.W.2d 402 (S.D. 2007) (purposeful availment and three-part minimum-contacts test)
Peterson v. Issenhuth, 842 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 2014) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
Lenius v. King, 294 N.W.2d 912 (S.D. 1980) (necessity of expert testimony in malpractice cases)
Hamilton v. Sommers, 855 N.W.2d 855 (S.D. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and requirement for expert evidence)
Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 915 N.W.2d 697 (S.D. 2018) (de novo review of summary judgment)