Whether the District Court erred in disallowing plaintiff's expert witness testimony regarding ethics violations and its irrelevance to this case which contributed to the verdict, and violated Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. The issue presented by Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari in this legal malpractice case is not whether a properly instructed jury could have ruled in favor of plaintiff but whether the court’s decision to disallow plaintiff's expert witness on the standard of care to explain to the jury in , plain language the ethics violation by a lawyer and its irrelevance to this case affected the jury’s verdict. See Ike J. White III v. Dait A. Beeks, M.D, (TN Supreme Court, 2015), Case No. . £2012-02443-SR-RI 1-CV. ; QUESTION 1: | Whether the District Court erred in disallowing plaintiff's expert witness testimony regarding ethics violations and its irrelevance to this case which contributed to the verdict, and violated Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. . QUESTION 2: Whether the District Court erred in affirming “there is no duty to control the conduct of a : 3rd person (client) as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another, when a special relation exists between the attorney and the other which gives the other a right to protection” in violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965). i ; PARTIES INVOLVED The parties involved are identified in the style of the case. ii