To support the element of cause in fact in a legal malpractice case, the plaintiff has to argue (and later prove) that he or she would have been successful in the underlying representation; or, in other words, that had it not been for the negligence of the lawyer, the plaintiff would have won (or obtained a better result) in the underlying case.
In response to such a claim, some jurisdictions, however, allow the defendant to defeat the plaintiff's argument by showing that the plaintiff would not have been able to collect on the underlying claim. It is not clear whether this argument is a defense or a part of the plaintiff's prima facie case, but, if applicable, it can defeat the cause of action.
I am writing about this today because The Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog has a comment on a recent case in Louisiana addressing the issue here.
No comments:
Post a Comment