
|
 |
Orange
County Legal Malpractice Attorneys
Legal or attorney malpractice can be described as a lawyer's failure
to render professional services with the skill, prudence, and diligence
that an ordinary and reasonable lawyer would use under similar circumstances.
This does not mean that every time there is a "bad" or "unfortunate"
outcome in a case there has been malpractice. It does not mean that
just because an attorney gave what turned out to be "bad" or "the
wrong" advice that he is liable for malpractice. No professional is
an insurer of a positive outcome for his client. What creates liability
is the lawyer's failure to act in the manner the ordinary or reasonable
lawyer would act in handling that matter for his client.
Beyond establishing the lawyer's negligence in rendering professional
services, a plaintiff must also prove that the negligence was the
legal cause of some actual damage to the plaintiff. Damages may not
be based upon sheer speculation or surmise, and the mere possibility
or even probability that damage will result from wrongful conduct
does not render it actionable. It is not sufficient to allege that
the underlying case should have settled for more, or might have resulted
in a higher verdict at trial. It is not sufficient to allege that
"if" the plaintiff had been given the right advice, he might have
spent less money in a transaction, or might have received more in
the transaction.
For legal malpractice in litigation cases, the need to prove actual
damages requires the plaintiff to prove what he would have recovered
in the "underlying" action, and that he was denied that recovery by
the actions of the lawyer. The jury instruction which is read in California
legal malpractice cases tells the jury that California law requires
a plaintiff who establishes malpractice on the part of his or her
attorney in prosecuting a lawsuit must also prove that careful management
of it would have resulted in a favorable judgment and collection thereof.
Because of this, the "new" attorney must litigate the "case within
the case": that is, he must not only prove that the first attorney
was negligent, but also that there would have been a recovery in the
lawsuit the attorney was hired to prosecute. If there was difficult
or no liability in the underlying case, there is little chance of
a recovery in a legal malpractice case. If the defendant had no insurance,
or had no assets from which a judgment could be satisfied, there is
no actual damage that can be recovered in the legal malpractice case.
|
|
 |