lay person could perform a quantity survey, but in Vandevelde the appellant wanted and hired a professional engineer to perform the work. Id. at 433. The Court of Appeals held that when determining which services are professional and which ones are not, “setting aside those activities or trying to determine which of those activities could be performed by a lay person renders the statute ineffective.” Id, “Since the appellant is a professional [an engineer] and was performing a duty consistent with his profession, even though it might have been done by a client or another layman, we hold that it is the type of duty envisioned by KRS 413.245.” Id, We find the reasoning set forth in Vandevelde to also be persuasive in this matter. While it is true that land surveying had no 403 (Id.2002) (<HOLDING>). In this matter, GDD hired MLS to perform
holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief holding that negligence on the part of a legal secretary is imputed to the supervising attorney and the statute of limitations for professional services applies to both holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law holding violation of the rules of professional conduct does not create a legal duty on the part of the lawyer nor constitute negligence per se although it may be used as some evidence of negligence holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract