Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070 reversed a nonsuit on claims against an attorney for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. With respect to the latter cause of action, the court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case by the testimony of an ethics expert that the defendant had violated various rules concerning the representation of conflicting interests. The Court stated: "The scope of an attorney's fiduciary duty may be determined as a matter of law based on the rules which, 'together with statutes and general principles relating to other fiduciary relationships, all help define the duty component of the fiduciary duty which an attorney owes to his or her client.' . . . Expert testimony is not required , but is admissible to establish the duty and breach elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty where the attorney conduct is a matter beyond common knowledge ." (35 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1086-1087.)