Plaintiff Iron Tax, Accounting & Financial Solutions, LLC (“Iron Tax”) brought this suit against Defendants Story Law Firm, PLLC and Travis W. Story (collectively, “Defendants” or “Story”) for legal malpractice. The claims here arise out of an underlying suit that resulted in a default judgment being entered against Iron Tax for failing to timely file a responsive pleading.
Defendants challenged the helpfulness and scope of Plaintiff’s expert Danny Crabtree‘s testimony.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Danny R. Crabtree is an attorney with experience in civil litigation and legal malpractice cases.
Crabtree began his legal career in 2004 as an associate at the Riable Law Firm and became a partner at Riable & Crabtree, Attorneys at Law in 2006. During this period, his practice included general litigation, domestic relations, debt collection, and the representation of small businesses in both transactional and litigation matters. In 2009, he established his own law office, focusing on professional negligence claims.
He holds a Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, from the William H. Bowen School of Law (2003), and a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (2001).
Discussion by the Court
Crabtree’s primary opinion is that Story’s failure to timely file a responsive pleading breached the standard of care for an attorney in Arkansas. However, the Court is not convinced that Crabtree’s testimony on this is necessary to the jury’s finding because it is common knowledge that failure to comply with statutorily prescribed deadlines in court cases is not in keeping with the standard of care for an attorney.
Nevertheless, the Court permitted Crabtree to testify that an attorney acting within the standard of care would have timely filed the answer, moved for an extension, or given advance warning to a client that they do not represent them in the matter due to nonpayment.
Furthermore, Crabtree may explain the effect of failing to answer: that a Defendant is precluded from asserting its defenses and counterclaims. The Court believes such testimony could help the jury to better understand the standard of care. Alternatively, should the parties instead wish to stipulate that failing to answer in thirty days constitutes a breach of the standard of care, they may, of course, do so.
Additional Opinions by Crabtree
In addition to the aforementioned opinion, Crabtree presented two additional opinions as to causation and the existence of an attorney-client relationship. Initially, in his report, Crabtree notes it is his “belief that Arkansas law does not permit an attorney-expert in a legal malpractice case to render an opinion as to causation (i.e., to testify as to the outcome of the underlying case).” Nevertheless, he states that to the extent such testimony is permitted, he believes Iron Tax “would have prevailed in the underlying case but for Attorney Story’s failure to timely file a responsive pleading” because Iron Tax had “meritorious affirmative defenses and counterclaims” against the Tripps, including a claim for violation of the noncompete.
Similarly, in his deposition, Crabtree stated, “While I don’t believe, yet again, that a legal malpractice expert should offer testimony as to whether there is client engagement,” to the extent such testimony is allowed, he opines that Story did have an attorney-client relationship with Iron Tax that was not limited to the demand letter.
Defendants argued that these two opinions are inadmissible as they stray from the appropriate scope of the testimony, i.e., whether Story acted within the standard of care. The Court agreed with Defendants. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments that testimony as to causation in this case would help the jury understand “how different legal strategies would have altered the outcome.”
In other words, Crabtree may testify as to the standard of care in this case
but may not testify as to causation or the existence of an attorney-client relationship.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Danny Crabtree.
Key Takeaway:
Crabtree’s testimony regarding causation has nothing to do with different legal strategies and is merely an assessment of whether the non-compete violation and fraudulent misrepresentation defenses/counterclaims would have succeeded. This is a determination fully within the jury’s capability. And, as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed, the jury will have to make that determination by applying the law—as supplied in the jury instructions—to the facts in this case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Iron Tax, Accounting & Financial Solutions, LLC V. Story Law Firm, P.L.L.C. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv5243 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Arkansas Western |
| Order Date: | April 08, 2025 |
Leave a Reply