James Thomas Patterson, Sr. brought an action against William C. Lanham, Stanley E. Sacks and the law firm of Sacks, Sacks & Larkin for legal malpractice. Plaintiff alleged defendants negligently represented him in various anti-trust lawsuits in which he did not prevail and, thereby, defendants breached their contract of employment. Defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint, and filed motions for summary judgment. In support thereof, defendants Lanham and Sacks submitted their affidavits wherein they deposed that they represented plaintiff in accordance with the standard of skill and care required by the legal profession generally under the circumstances in which they were confronted. Defendant law firm submitted the affidavit of Girard C. Larkin, Jr., an *344 attorney who was associated with defendant law firm and is familiar with the representation which gave rise to plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice against defendants. Mr. Larkin deposed that defendants Sacks and Lanham and defendant law firm exercised actions which “were in accordance with the standards of care and skill exercised by the legal profession generally under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances, and that degree of care and skill exercised by the legal profession generally was adhered to by them and by me in every respect.”
Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motions for summary judgment, but he did not bring forth expert evidence concerning defendants’ want of professional skill and diligence. Instead, plaintiff responded in his affidavit averring that he had been unable to locate any attorney willing to provide an affidavit to refute the affidavits filed by defendants. The trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on uncontradicted affidavits filed by defendants and plaintiff appeals pro se. Held:
1. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance in order to allow him the opportunity to file affidavits in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
“We have held ‘(t)he grant or denial of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and unless clearly abused will not be interfered with.
Smith v. Davis,
2. Plaintiff objects to the consideration of the affidavits filed by defendants on the grounds that only one of the attorneys, defendant Lanham, is a member of the State Bar of Georgia. The record shows that defendant Sacks and affiant Larkin are experienced attorneys and are licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both defendant Lanham and affiant Larkin averred that the skill and care utilized in the underlying lawsuits by defendants were comparable to that required
in the legal profession generally.
Under these circumstances, we find the affidavits in question sufficient as a matter of law to oppose plaintiff’s allegation of legal malpractice.
Kellos v. Sawilowsky,
Further, plaintiff contends that the affiants were not qualified as experts in the legal profession. “Nothing more is required to entitle
*345
one to give testimony as an expert than that he has been educated in the particular trade or profession, although the special knowledge required to qualify as an expert may be derived from experience as well as study. See
Dennis v. State,
3. Plaintiff asserts several convoluted arguments in support of his remaining enumeration of errors challenging the propriety of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
“It is presumed that [defendants] performed legal services for plaintiff in an ordinarily skillful manner.
Hughes v. Malone,
Judgment affirmed.