ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4ÝñU: : w: 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ U,- 0dY U,½ U>é U*'B)QDCz AM½ÿ  B v~&vÓ¤ D3w 0@ª AOêÆ9 0Dÿ D/C Br˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡A‚k 3|x•,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularˆÓ€”•2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ õÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òMarch€18,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ÔÑ7€­ØXXdædÈ7Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌKACY€L.€HIGGINS,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Circuit€No.€59491€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9503„CV„00043ÌÙ€€ÙßL€#$";+'h|M` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBLOUNT€LAW€FIRM,€à àà àà à)Ì€JAMES€E.€BLOUNT,€III,à àà àà à)ÌJOSEPH€M.€SPARKMAN,€JR.,€à àà à)ÌJOHN€APPMAN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€KAY€S.€ROBILIO,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌò òABBY€RUBENFELDÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌò òMARK€BURNETTEÌJOHN€W.€WALKER,€P.A.Ìó óLittle€Rock,€ArkansasÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òJAMES€E.€BLOUNT,€IIIÌBLOUNT€LAW€FIRMÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌò òJOSEPH€M.€SPARKMAN,€JR.Ìó óSouthaven,€MississippiÌAttorneys€for€Appellees€Blount€Law€Firm,€James€E.€Blount,€IIIÌand€Joseph€M.€SparkmanÌÌò òRICHARD€GLASSMANÌJAMES€F.€HORNERÌGLASSMAN,€JETER,€EDWARDS€&€WADE,€P.C.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee€John€AppmanÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ó óÔ€ÔÌÓÓ€Ô€ Ôà àKacy€L.€Higgins€("plaintiff")€filed€this€legal€malpractice€against€his€formerÏattorneys,€Ñ7€–;XXdìXXdæ7ÑJames€E.€Blount,€III,€Joseph€M.€Sparkman,€and€John€AppmanÏ("defendants"),€seeking€damages€caused€by€defendants'€alleged€negligence€duringÏtheir€representation€of€plaintiff€in€a€medical€malpractice€suit.€The€trial€court€grantedÏsummary€judgment€in€favor€of€defendants€because€plaintiff€did€not€file€an€expertÏaffidavit€in€opposition€to€defendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€€Plaintiff€contendsÏon€appeal€that€the€entry€of€summary€judgment€was€improper€because€defendants'Ïaffidavit€in€support€of€their€motion€was€insufficient.€€For€the€reasons€hereafter€stated,Ïwe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà à€Ìà àPlaintiff€filed€his€complaint€on€February€4,€1994.€€€€In€response,€defendants€filedÏa€motion€to€dismiss€or€alternatively,€for€summary€judgment,€which€was€supported€byÏthe€affidavit€of€an€attorney,€Wilbur€C.€Ruleman.€€€In€his€affidavit,€Ruleman€stated€that€heÏwas€familiar€with€the€standard€of€care€for€the€legal€profession€in€Shelby€County,ÏTennessee,€that€he€reviewed€the€complete€legal€file€of€plaintiff,€and€that,€in€his€opinion,€Ïdefendants€did€not€deviate€from€the€applicable€standard€of€care.€€Ruleman's€affidavitÍwas€notarized€by€Karen€Peterson,€a€notary€public,€on€April€7,€1994.€€The€notarization,Ïhowever,€stated€that€Karen€Peterson's€commission€as€a€notary€public€expired€onÏMarch€28,€1994.€Ìà àÌà àOn€May€20,€1994,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€defendants'€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€€At€that€time,€the€trial€judge€afforded€plaintiff€thirty€additional€daysÏto€€produce€an€expert€affidavit€stating€that€defendants€deviated€from€the€recognizedÏstandard€of€care€for€lawyers.€€Plaintiff€failed€to€produce€an€expert€affidavit.€ÏConsequently,€the€trial€court€granted€defendants'€motion€to€dismiss€or€alternatively,€forÏsummary€judgment,€and€dismissed€plaintiff's€case€against€all€defendants.€€Ìà àÌà àPlaintiff€argues€on€appeal€that€summary€judgment€was€improperly€grantedÏbecause€the€Ruleman€affidavit€was€insufficient€to€support€defendants'€motion.€€PlaintiffÏfirst€contends€that€the€affidavit€had€no€legal€effect€because€the€document€stated€thatÏthe€notary's€commission€had€expired€before€the€date€that€Ruleman€signed€the€affidavit.€€ÏPlaintiff€further€contends€that€the€affidavit€affirmatively€failed€to€establish€Ruleman'sÏcompetency€to€testify€about€the€legal€malpractice€case.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€first€issue,€which€relates€to€the€expired€commission€date,€is€notÏproperly€before€this€court€because€it€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€the€issueÏwas€presented€to€the€trial€court.€€Defendants€stated€in€oral€argument€that€theÏcommission€was€still€in€effect€and€that€the€wrong€date€was€inadvertently€inserted.€€InÏany€event,€issues€not€raised€in€the€trial€court€cannot€be€raised€for€the€first€time€onÍappeal.€€òòSimpson€v.€Frontier€Community€Credit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.2d€147,€153€(Tenn.Ï1991).ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€second€contention€is€that€the€Ruleman€affidavit€was€insufficient€toÏsupport€defendants'€motion€for€summary€judgment€because€it€failed€to€establishÏRuleman's€competency€to€opine€as€to€whether€defendants€breached€the€standard€ofÏcare€in€their€representation€of€plaintiff.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€we€consider€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€the€same€manner€asÏwe€would€consider€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€€All€of€the€evidence€must€be€viewedÏin€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€opponent€of€the€motion€and€all€legitimate€conclusions€ofÏfact€must€be€drawn€in€favor€of€the€opponent.€€It€is€only€where€there€are€no€disputedÏissues€of€material€fact€that€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€by€the€trial€court€andÏsustained€by€this€court.€€òòDaniels€v.€White€Consol.€Industries,€Inc.óó,€692€S.W.2d€422,€424Ï(Tenn.€App.€1985).€€As€explained€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2dÏ208€(Tenn.€1993):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhen€the€party€seeking€summary€judgment€makes€aÏproperly€supported€motion,€the€burden€then€shifts€to€theÏnonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts,€not€legalÏconclusions,€by€using€affidavits€or€the€discovery€materialsÏlisted€in€Rule€56.03,€establishing€that€there€are€indeedÏdisputed,€material€facts€creating€a€genuine€issue€that€needsÏto€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact€and€that€a€trial€is€thereforeÏnecessary.€€The€nonmoving€party€may€not€rely€upon€theÏallegations€or€denials€of€his€pleadings€in€carrying€out€thisÏburden€as€mandated€by€Rule€56.05.€€òòId.óó€at€215.ÌÓÓà àÌà àIn€the€present€malpractice€case,€plaintiff€had€the€burden€of€proving:€€(1)€€theÍemployment€of€the€attorney;€(2)€€negligent€breach€of€duty€by€the€attorney;€and€(3)€Ïdamages€resulting€from€the€alleged€negligence.€€òòBlocker€v.€Dearborn€&€Ewingóó,€851ÏS.W.2d€825,€827€(Tenn.€1992).€€Except€in€the€most€unusual€or€extreme€cases,€aÏlawyer's€standard€of€care€should€be€established€and€proved€through€expert€testimony.€ÏòòCleckner€v.€Daleóó,€719€S.W.2d€535,€540€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€Moreover,€the€question€ofÏwhether€a€lawyer's€conduct€constituted€a€departure€from€the€applicable€standard€ofÏcare€should€also€be€proved€by€expert€testimony.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIn€the€affidavit€filed€by€defendants€in€support€of€their€motion,€the€affiant€stated€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1)€€My€name€is€Wilbur€C.€Ruleman€and€I€am€an€attorneyÏlicensed€to€practice€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€I€have€beenÏpracticing€in€my€chosen€field€since€1956€with€the€majority€ofÏmy€practice€being€conducted€in€Memphis,€Shelby€County,ÏTennessee.Ìà8 àà8 à2)€€I€am€personally€aware€of€the€recognized€standard€ofÏacceptable€professional€practice€in€the€profession€inÏMemphis,€Shelby€County,€Tennessee.Ìà8 àà8 à3)€€€€I€have€reviewed€the€complete€legal€file€of€Kacy€L.ÏHiggins€which€was€compiled€by€James€E.€Blount,€Joseph€M.ÏSparkman,€Jr.,€and€John€Appman,€Attorneys€at€Law,€as€aÏresult€of€an€injury€sustained€on€February€17,€1992.€€The€fileÏreflects€that€Mr.€Higgins€received€blunt€trauma€to€his€face€asÏa€result€of€an€altercation€on€the€aforesaid€date€and€receivedÏmedical€treatment€at€Methodist€Hospitals€of€Memphis.Ìà8 àà8 à4)€€After€careful€and€thoughtful€review,€I€am€of€theÏprofessional€opinion€that€Blount€Law€Firm,€James€E.€Blount,ÏIII,€Joseph€M.€Sparkman,€Jr.,€and€John€Appman€did€not€actÏwith€less€than,€nor€did€they€fail€to€act€with€ordinary€andÏreasonable€care€in€accordance€with€the€recognizedÏstandard€of€acceptable€legal€practice€in€Memphis,€ShelbyÏCounty,€Tennessee€or€in€a€similar€community€inÏrepresenting€and€preparing€Mr.€Higgins'€case.€€ÌÓÓÌà àTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€56.05€requires€that€affidavits€in€support€ofÏmotions€for€summary€judgment€be€executed€by€an€affiant€competent€to€testify€as€toÏmatters€therein.€€The€affidavit€must€be€based€on€personal€knowledge€and€must€setÏforth€facts€that€would€be€admissible€into€evidence.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.05.€€ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€filed€by€the€defendants€satisfy€these€requisites.€€Ruleman's€years€ofÏexperience€as€an€attorney€in€the€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€area€render€himÏcompetent€to€opine€as€to€the€standard€of€care.€€Ruleman€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€heÏreviewed€the€complete€file€and€concluded€that€defendants€did€not€breach€that€standardÏof€care.€€(TR€11)€€This€affidavit€served€to€shift€to€the€plaintiff€the€burden€of€producing€aÏcountervailing€affidavit.€€If€the€sole€issue€in€a€case€is€one€that€requires€expertÏtestimony,€and€the€nonmoving€party€provides€no€counter„affidavit€in€opposition€to€theÏmoving€party's€expert€testimony,€then€summary€judgment€is€proper.€€òòAyers€v.ÏRutherford€Hospital,€Inc.óó,€689€S.W.2d€155,€160€(Tenn.€App.€1984).€€€Because€plaintiffÏfailed€to€counter€defendants'€expert€testimony,€plaintiff€failed€to€establish€that€thereÏexist€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€to€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€Ìà àà àÌà àWe€hold€that€summary€judgment€was€properly€granted€in€favor€of€defendants.€ÏCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€plaintiff.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.Ì