![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/d4zGa6KpR1edCELh97u15fi_eVM=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/e2/50/e1/e250e1e7-6967-4dbd-80f6-1639cb2258db/thumbnail_d53a047f-8a06-49df-bdc1-a13a73ed35c1.jpg)
Article
Causation and "Legal Certainty" in Legal Malpractice Law
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Date Created
7-2018
Publisher
St. Mary's University School of Law
Editor
Martha Alejandra Salas
Publication Date
7-1-2018
Disciplines
Abstract
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.
Citation Information
Vincent R. Johnson. "Causation and "Legal Certainty" in Legal Malpractice Law" (2018) p. 374 - 405 Available at: http://works.bepress.com/vincent_johnson/10/