St. Mary's University School of Law
Martha Alejandra Salas
A line of California cases holds that causation of damages in legal malpractice actions must be proven with “legal certainty.” This Article argues that judicial references to legal certainty are ambiguous and threaten to undermine the fairness of legal malpractice litigation as a means for resolving lawyer-client disputes. Courts should eschew the language of legal certainty and plainly state that damages are recoverable if a legal malpractice plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those losses were factually and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.
Vincent R. Johnson,
Causation and "Legal Certainty" in Legal Malpractice Law,
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol8/iss2/4
Courts Commons, Evidence Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons