The trial court properly entered a directed verdict against plaintiff in this legal malpractice action.  Although plaintiff alleged the defendant divorce lawyer was negligent in other ways, he presented expert testimony only with respect to the failure to hire a forensic accountant to counter the wife’s claim for spousal support payments.  The other alleged acts of negligence were not so glaringly obvious as to be provable without expert testimony, so a verdict was properly directed against plaintiff on them.  As to hiring a forensic accountant, plaintiff’s expert could not opine on whether plaintiff’s spousal support obligation would have been reduced if an accountant had been hired.  Since causation in this case was not a matter within the jury’s cognizance, expert testimony establishing causation was required.  Since there was none, the trial court properly directed a verdict against the plaintiff.