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

733 chars

10
negligence caused him any damage because the defense he
claimed the attorneys should have asserted lacked merit.
Hastings, which involved a legal malpractice plaintiff who was a
defendant (not a plaintiff) in the underlying action, says nothing
about requiring the plaintiff to prove a judgment in the
underlying case would have been collectible.
      Which brings us back to this case. Though I believe
Campbell and its progeny do not support a rule requiring a legal
malpractice plaintiff to prove the underlying judgment would
have been collectible, Kaushansky does not argue the rule does
not apply to her. Therefore, I concur in the majority’s opinion
with the exception of section (A)(2)(b) of the Discussion. SEGAL, J. 11

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text