Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1988

Urbanek v. Cohn

Urbanek v. Cohn
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 5, 1988 · Anstead, Glickstein, Gunther
531 So. 2d 427; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2263; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4415; 1988 WL 101062 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Urbanek v. Cohn

Concurring Opinion

ANSTEAD, Judge,

concurring specially.

I agree with the majority that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on the authority of Willage v. Law Offices of Wallace and Breslow, P.A., 415 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). That case stands for the proposition that expert testimony may be necessary in a legal malpractice action to establish an appropriate standard of care and the violation thereof by the defendant’s attorney. I agree that, under the facts of this case, Willage, controls. I would not rely on Diaz v. Piquette.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Willage v. Law Offices of Wallace & Breslow, P.A., 415 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.