Hinshaw reports this case in which the claim is that witnesses were inadequately prepared, and thus suffered damage. 

"A Georgia appellate court recently rejected a claim by clients of a law firm that their lawyers were liable to them for certain adverse consequences stemming from the lawyers’ allegedly insufficiently preparing them to testify as witnesses in an underlying action. In that underlying lawsuit, plaintiffs/clients were held liable to a former business associate/shareholder for fraud, which included an unauthorized merger of the jointly owned business. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their lawsuit against the lawyers. The court held that the law firm could not be liable for punitive damages imposed on the clients. But it found a question of fact as to whether the firm’s failure to call an expert witness was an informed judgment call. After remanding the case, the court reviewed another summary judgment for the law firm, this time concerning trial preparation, and a denial of a motion concerning negligent preparation of merger documents.

One plaintiff contended that she had not been prepared for being called first, as an adverse witness. Consequently, she further alleged, she was frustrated and “was presented as an angry, upset woman.” The other plaintiff contended that lack of preparation made him “look like a fool.” Plaintiffs’ expert witness testified that with proper preparation, plaintiffs, would have not looked so evasive and would have presented better to the jury.

In upholding summary judgment for the lawyers, the court held that the adverse effect on demeanor was not sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The court stated:

We find this generalized expert testimony insufficient to raise an issue of fact on whether appellants would have prevailed in the underlying litigation if they had been prepared differently for trial. . . . There is no evidence that the Pauls failed to give testimony that they would have given if they had been better prepared, or that such evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial. . . . "