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

1,840 chars

7
underlying case had “actual value” (Campbell, supra,
184 Cal.App.2d at p. 753)—$94,234.29, to be precise— because
she proved it in the case within the case.
       I recognize the collectibility train has left the legal
malpractice station, but I would get off here. We do not have to
follow Campbell or its progeny. (See Gamerberg v. 3000 E. 11th
St., LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 424, 431, fn. 8 [“we are not
obligated to follow a decision by a Court of Appeal with which we
disagree”]; Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc.
(2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1, 11 [Court of Appeal is not bound by
decisions by other Courts of Appeal]; Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd.
(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1193 [“there is no horizontal stare
decisis in the California Court of Appeal”].) We do, though, have
to follow decisions by the Supreme Court. (See People v. Perez
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 1, 13 [decisions of the Supreme Court ‘“are
binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of
California”’]; Loshonkohl v. Kinder (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 510,
517 [“As an intermediate appellate court we are bound by
decisions of our Supreme Court and we must follow the reasoning
found therein.”]; Smith v. Regents of University of California
(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 397, 400 [“This court is bound by and must
follow prior California Supreme Court decisions.”].) So: Are
there any Supreme Court cases holding the plaintiff in a legal
malpractice action must prove the underlying judgment would
have been collectible? There are only two candidates, and in my
view, neither supports such a requirement.
       In Lally v. Kuster (1918) 177 Cal. 783 (Lally), which the
court in Campbell discussed extensively (Campbell, supra,
184 Cal.App.2d at pp. 754-755), the plaintiff hired an attorney to
collect on an “overdue note.” (Lally, supra, 177 Cal. at p. 785.)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text