Paul v. Ormond

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ronald I. Paul, Appellant,

v.

J. Charles
Ormond, Jr., Individually, and as a partner of the Law Firm of Holler,
Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner, Respondents.

Appeal From Richland County

L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-229

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed May 27, 2009  

AFFIRMED

Ronald I. Paul, pro se Appellant.

J. Charles Ormond, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ronald Paul alleges the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of Charles Ormond, Jr. in actions for legal
malpractice, breach of contract, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
and negligence, all of which relate to Ormond’s representation of Paul in an
underlying condemnation action.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1.  As to whether summary
judgment was proper: Rule 56(c), SCRCP
(stating summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001)
(explaining the purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of
cases not requiring the services of a fact finder).  

2.  As to whether Paul was
required to produce an expert witness to establish duty, breach of duty, and
proximate cause in his legal malpractice action: Doe v. Howe,
367 S.C. 432, 446, 626 S.E.2d 25, 32 (Ct. App. 2005) (“The client’s burden of establishing proximate cause
in a legal malpractice action requires that he prove that he would have
obtained a better result in the underlying matter if the attorney had exercised
reasonable care.”); McNair v. Rainsford, 330 S.C. 332, 342, 499 S.E.2d
488, 494 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating in a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff
must generally establish the standard of care by expert testimony); Jernigan
v. King, 312 S.C. 331, 334, 440 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct. App.1993) (“On a
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, there will usually be no genuine issue
of material fact unless the plaintiff presents expert testimony on the standard of care and its breach by the defendant.”).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN,
C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.