Respond to this text In Miletic v. O'Brien, the malpractice allegation was O'Brien's breach of duty of care by failing to obtain monthly spousal support payments from the ex-spouse and conduct discovery properly. The court ruled that Miletic did not have enough proof and no professional opinion to have a malpractice case. Miletic agreed with the original divorce agreement terms and only sued for malpractice after a terms agreement existed. When Miletic tried to appeal and argue that the malpractice was common knowledge and there was no need for a professional opinion, it did not make sense because if that were the case, then reasonably, Miletic would not have agreed to the terms initially. I think the attorney should have done more discovery so that the client could have had more benefits and a larger settlement, but if both sides agreed with the terms, then I understand why an attorney would not want to look any further into the case. Doing more research could have prolonged the case more than necessary when the main goal is a swift and satisfying solution, which Miletic initially agreed with. Because there was a resolution to the case, I agree with the court's ruling, and I think the attorney handled the case competently. If there was no resolution and the client lost or failed to gain any compensation, then I would see how Miletic could have had a case for malpractice. I think that Miletic could have potentially received more compensation, but I believe that the attorney