The Kansas Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant legal malpractice case involving B.E. and her former attorneys, Brad Pistotnik and Tony Atterbury. The court's decision, filed on September 11, 2026, clarifies the qualifications required for expert witnesses in legal malpractice cases, which could have far-reaching implications for future claims of this nature.

B.E. initially filed a lawsuit against her former attorneys, alleging negligence and fraud related to her previous tort case against G.G., who she claimed had transmitted HIV to her. The court's ruling focused on whether every licensed attorney is automatically qualified to testify as an expert in legal malpractice cases, a question that has significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in similar situations.

Background

B.E. had previously sued G.G. for negligence, claiming he transmitted HIV to her. G.G. countered with his own claims against B.E. After settling their claims through a mutual release agreement, B.E. later alleged that her attorneys had fraudulently attached her signature to the agreement. The district court upheld the settlement, leading B.E. to file a legal malpractice lawsuit against her attorneys, claiming they had mishandled her case.

In her malpractice suit, B.E. accused her attorneys of breaching their fiduciary duties and violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The case eventually reached the Kansas Court of Appeals after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, primarily on the grounds that B.E. failed to provide sufficient expert testimony to support her claims.

The Ruling

The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that not every licensed attorney is qualified to serve as an expert witness in a legal malpractice case. The court stated, "Even after this statute was revised to adopt the standards of Daubert, testimony is generally required from an attorney who has expertise in the same area of law in which the defendant attorney practices." This ruling underscores the necessity of having an expert who possesses specialized knowledge beyond that of a typical attorney.

The court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude B.E.'s designated expert, Amanda Jumpponen, from testifying. The district court found that Jumpponen lacked sufficient experience in civil litigation to qualify as an expert in this case. The appellate court agreed, stating there was no abuse of discretion in excluding her testimony, which was crucial for B.E.'s claims of legal malpractice.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future legal malpractice cases in Kansas. It reinforces the requirement that expert witnesses must have specialized knowledge in the specific area of law relevant to the case. As a result, plaintiffs in legal malpractice suits will need to ensure that their designated experts have the appropriate qualifications and experience to testify effectively.

The decision also clarifies that simply being a licensed attorney does not automatically qualify someone as an expert in legal malpractice cases. This distinction is critical for both plaintiffs and defendants, as it sets a higher bar for the qualifications of expert witnesses in these types of cases.

What's Next

B.E. has the option to appeal the ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court, although it is unclear whether she will pursue this route. The outcome of this case may influence the handling of similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the qualifications of expert witnesses in legal malpractice claims.