Claims against professional advisers follow a common structure across professions.
Duty. To the client, arising from the engagement. To non-clients only in narrow circumstances — where the professional knew the work was for the non-client’s benefit and guidance, which is the negligent misrepresentation route.
Standard of care. What a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field would have done in the circumstances, established by expert testimony in nearly all cases.
Causation. The most difficult element. In legal malpractice, the case within a case: the claimant must prove that but for the negligence, the underlying matter would have had a better outcome, and that the resulting judgment would have been collectable.
Damages. Actual loss, with lost opportunity and consequential damages subject to the usual limits. Fee disgorgement in cases of breach of fiduciary duty.
Limitation. Occurrence or discovery depending on the state, with continuous representation tolling in several jurisdictions and statutes of repose in others.
Defences. Comparative fault of the client, judgmental immunity for reasonable choices among strategies, the client’s own decisions, and failure to mitigate.
Certificates of merit required at filing in many states, with dismissal for non-compliance.