Reukema v. Gilboy CA4/1
In a litigation malpractice action, a plaintiff establishes causation by showing that "but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result." Proving causation in such cases has been likened to a trial within a trial, or case within a case, in which the trier of fact determines how the underlying proceeding would have been resolved had the attorney met the standard of care. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 832-833 (Mattco Forge).) This method of proving causation applies not only in attorney malpractice cases, but also in analogous cases against nonlawyer "litigation support professionals." (Id. at pp. 834-835.)
This appeal does not arise from a legal malpractice case, but it involves analogous facts. The trial court characterized this as a "collection agent malpractice" case.
Comments on Reukema v. Gilboy CA4/1