122 Wis. 2d 94, 362 N.W.2d 118 (1985)
The damages to plaintiff should have been calculated by comparing what she actually received from the stipulation with what a reasonable judge would have awarded her had she been properly represented. The trial court erred in allowing the trial judge z to testify as to what he would have awarded had the divorce action been tried before him and in excluding relevant evidence as to what a reasonable judge who was apprised of all of the facts would have awarded in 1977. The attorney in this matter did little or nothing to accumulate all the pertinent facts necessary to make an intelligent and professional evaluation of his client’s claim, failed to conduct adequate discovery of the marital estate and was not prepared at trial to prove the value of the marital assets or the amount necessary for maintenance and the duration thereof.
[ Full Opinion ]