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

1,594 chars

4
latter elements, and the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff
to prove recoverability and collectibility of a plaintiff’s claim or
ability to establish a defense for a client who has been sued.” (Id.
at p. 754.)
       A line of cases in the Courts of Appeal have cited Campbell
for its requirement (again, unique in the law) the plaintiff not
only has the burden to prove duty, breach, causation, and
damages, but also the collectibility of the underlying judgment.
For example, in DiPalma v. Seldman (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1499
(DiPalma) the court cited Campbell and stated: “One 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, as there is no damage in the absence of these latter
elements.” (Id. at pp. 1506-1507.) In Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur
Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820 the court repeated a
quote from Campbell that “‘one who establishes malpractice on
the part of his attorney in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit
must also prove that careful management of it would have
resulted in recovery of a favorable judgment and collection of
same.’” (Id. at p. 832.) 3 In Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002)
99 Cal.App.4th 563 (Garretson) the court, citing Campbell and
DiPalma, stated “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.” (Id. at p. 571.) In Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text