Legal Malpractice Requires Proof of Damages

Legal or attorney malpractice is described as athe plaintiff had been given the right advice, he might
lawyer's failure to render professional services withhave spent less money in a transaction, or might
the skill, prudence, and diligence that an ordinary andhave received more in the transaction.
reasonable lawyer would use under similarFor legal malpractice in litigation cases, the need to
circumstances.prove actual damages requires the plaintiff to prove
Every time there is a "bad" or "unfortunate" casewhat he would have recovered in the "underlying"
outcome it is not necessarily legal malpractice. If anaction, and that he was denied that recovery by the
attorney gave what turned out to be "bad" or "theactions of the lawyer. The jury instruction which is
wrong" advice, you cannot automatically accuse theread in California legal malpractice cases tells the jury
prosecutor of legal malpractice. No professional canthat California law requires a plaintiff who establishes
ensure or promise a positive outcome for his client. Itmalpractice on the part of his or her attorney in
is important to remember that what creates liability isprosecuting a lawsuit must also prove that careful
the lawyer's failure to act in the manner the ordinarymanagement of it would have resulted in a favorable
or reasonable lawyer would act in handling thatjudgment and collection thereof.
matter for his client.Because of this, the "new" attorney must litigate the
To successfully win a legal malpractice case, a plaintiff"case within the case": that is, he must not only
must prove that the lawyer's negligence was theprove that the first attorney was negligent, but also
legal cause of some actual damage to the plaintiff.that there would have been a recovery in the lawsuit
Damages may not be based upon sheer speculationthe attorney was hired to prosecute.
or surmise, and the mere possibility or evenIf there was difficult or no liability in the underlying
probability that damage will result from wrongfulcase, there is little chance of a recovery in a legal
conduct does not render it actionable.malpractice case. If the defendant had no insurance,
It is not sufficient to allege that the underlying caseor had no assets from which a judgment could be
should have settled for more or resulted in a highersatisfied, there is no actual damage that can be
verdict at trial. It is not sufficient to allege that "if"recovered in the legal malpractice case.