Plаintiffs appeal of right a November 28, 1977, lower court order dismissing their legal malpractice action against defendant William J. Drillock on the ground that they had failed to establish through expert testimony the standard of care common to members of the legal profession. We rеverse.
On January 1, 1972, plaintiff Joos was one of several passengers in an automobile that was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by plaintiff Avery. Joos and five other passengers of the car in which she had been riding filed suit against Avery and her insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company. Dеfendant Drillock subse *421 quently was retained by Auto-Owners to represent itself and Avery in that litigation.
Under her policy with Auto-Owners, Avery was insured to a maximum of $40,000 рer accident and $20,000 per person. All plaintiffs except Joos settled with Avery prior to trial for sums that totalled $23,000. Although Joos offered tо settle her claim within Auto-Owners’ remaining liability under the policy, no settlement occurred and she proceeded to trial where she received a jury award of $65,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Some time in April of 1977, Avery and Joos, to whom Avery had assigned a portion of her purported claim, filed the instant legal malpractice suit. At the November, 1977, trial of this cause, plaintiff Avery testified that defendant Drillock never informed her, prior to the beginning of the automobile negligence trial, that Joos had made several offers to settle within the limits of the poliсy. It was only on the first day of that trial that she became aware that Joos was willing to settle within the available insurance coverage.
Althоugh she attempted to persuade defendant to settle he advised her that he could not do so because he did not have authority to settle for the amount proposed by Joos. Defendant further told her that she should put a statement on the record as to her desire to settle within the limits of the policy. Plaintiff Avery did so. Finally, Avery testified that on the second day of the prior trial, defendant advised her that he had reсeived authority to settle. When she responded that she would like to have the case settled, defendant refused to do so becausе he thought he could "beat the case”.
Following the completion of plaintiff Avery’s testimony, plaintiffs rested their case. Defendant *422 movеd to have plaintiffs’ case dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to offer expert testimony to establish the standard of care owed by an attorney or a breach of that standard. The lower court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs now appeal and we rеverse.
The issue presented, as to whether a plaintiff in a legal malpractice action must offer expert testimony as to the standard of care to which an attorney will be held and as to a violation of that standard, has not been addressed previously by any published Michigan authority. As a general principle, an attorney must bring to bear the skill, learning, and ability of the average practitioner of law when сonducting legal business for a client. He or she must exercise ordinary care or diligence in the prosecution of the client’s interests.
Babbitt v Bumpus,
In our attempt to resolve the issue before us, we have been guided somewhat by Michigan case law authority in the area of medical malpractice. The commonly held rule in medical malpractice cases is that expert testimony is a prerequisite to a plaintiff-patient’s right to recover from either a physician or a hospital.
Bivens v Detroit Osteopathic Hospital,
In
Lince v Monson,
Although there is no uniformity of decision in the cases of other states thаt have addressed and resolved the present issue, 1 we note that certain jurisdictions have applied a rule in legal malpractice actions similar to the rule used in Michigan for medical malpractice actions.
In Wright v Williams, 47 Cal App 3d 802, 810; 121 Cal Rptr 194 (1975), the California Court of Appеals held:
"While California law holds that expert testimony is admissible to establish the standard of care applicable to a lawyer in the рerformance of an engagement and whether he has performed to that standard * * *, it by no means clearly establishes the parameters of the necessity of expert testimony to the plaintiffs burden of proof. In some situations, at least, expert testimony is not required. * * * In somе circumstances, the failure of attorney performance may be so clear that a trier of fact may ñnd professional negligеnce unaided by the testimony of experts. ” (Emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, in
Baker v Beal,
Although proof of purported negligence arising from pretrial or trial strategy may or may not require expert testimony, plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant breached the applicable standard of care when he failed to inform Avery of the offers by Joos to settle prior to trial аnd their allegation that he refused to settle on the second day of trial when he received authority to do so does not. We do not hesitate to hold that under the allegations of facts before us, an attorney has, as a matter of law, a duty to disclose and discuss with his or her сlient good faith offers to settle. 2 It is well within the ordinary knowledge and experience of a layman jury to recognize that, under facts such as those alleged in the instant case, the failure of an attorney to disclose such information is a breach of the professional stаndard of care.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to abide final outcome of this litigation.
Notes
See Anno: Admissibility аnd Necessity of Expert Evidence as to Standards of Practice and Negligence in Malpractice Action Against Attorney, 17 ALR3d 1442, collecting and discussing cases on this point from various jurisdictions.
We express no opinion as to whether plaintiffs can prove their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. We merely state that if they can, then they are entitled to a judgment.