Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,363 chars

b.    Proof of collectibility in malpractice actions
       “‘In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of
action for professional negligence are: “(1) the duty of the
attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of
the profession commonly possess; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a
proximate causal connection between the breach and the
resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.”’” (Blanks v.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 356-357
(Blanks).)
       The causation and damages elements of malpractice
require the plaintiff to establish that “but for the defendant’s
negligent acts or omissions, ‘the plaintiff would have obtained a
more favorable judgment or settlement in the action in which the
malpractice allegedly occurred.’” (Blanks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th
at p. 357.) “In this sense, collectibility of the hypothetical
underlying judgment . . . is a component of the plaintiff’s current
case relating to damages, as caused by the current negligent
attorney defendant.” (Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (2013)
220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1191 (Wise); accord, Garretson v. Harold I.
Miller (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 563, 571 (Garretson) [“a plaintiff in
a malpractice action must prove he would have obtained a
judgment in the underlying action and that the judgment, or
some portion of it, could have been collected”]; DiPalma v.

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text