Group items tagged

Part IV acknowledges the tension between the difficulty of proving causation in legal malpractice actions and one of the goals of legal malpractice, which is to allow litigants recovery when their attorneys are negligent. The part then considers the "loss of chance" doctrine, which is used in medical malpractice cases, as a possible alternative to the rigorous "but for" causation requirement in legal malpractice. Since a shift away from the "but for" standard is likely to cause more problems than it solves, and because adequate protections already exist for litigants, Part IV argues that the current causation requirements should be maintained for litigants who allege that they suffered an injury during Supreme Court oral argument. [*pg 115]

The opportunity to convince [the Justices] of the merits of your position is at its highpoint."47

See 3 MALLEN & SMITH, supra note 15, § 29.41, at 772 ("In presenting the underlying appeal in the subsequent legal malpractice action, the parties must specify the issues that should have been urged in the underlying action."). Failure to specify the issues is a failure to prove causation. See id. 146. See infra note 151 and accompanying text. 147. See Smith v. Lewis, 530 P.2d 589, 595 (Cal. 1975). 148. See Lysick v. Walcom, 258 Cal. App. 2d 136, 153 (Ct. App. 1968). The attorney's action need not be the sole cause of the client's loss, just a substantial factor. See id. at 153 n.7. 149. See infra note 213 and accompanying text.

Court Opinions US Supreme Court US Tax Court Board of Patent Appeals State Laws Alabama Arizona California Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington US Code Copyrights Crimes Labor Patents Shipping US Constitution Preamble Art. I - Legislative Art. II - Executive Art. III - Judicial Art. IV - States' Relations Art. V - Mode of Amendment Art. VI - Prior Debts Art VII - Ratification California Evidence Code Section 669 Legal Research Home > California Lawyer > Evidence Code > California Evidence Code Section 669 Sponsored Links google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad); google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad); (a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted. (b) This presumption may be rebutted by proof that: (1) The person violating the statute, ordinance, or regulation did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law; or (2) The person violating the statute, ordinance, or regulation was a child and exercised the degree of care ordinarily exercised by persons of his maturity, intelligence, and capacity under similar circumstances, but the presumption may not be rebutted by such proof if the violation occurred in the course of an activity normally engaged in only by adults and requiring adult qualifications. Section: Previous  660  662  663  664  665  666  667  668  669  669.1  669.5  670  Next Last modified: January 12, 2009 google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);border: medium none ; margin: 0pt; paddin