Should jury decide how judge would have ruled?

In a potentially troublesome decision for attorneys facing a malpractice suit, Lombardo v. Hysentruyt, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 (Cal.App. 2001), the California Court of Appeal, First District, reversed and remanded a nonsuit in a legal malpractice case in which the trial judge had ruled that the attorney...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Defense counsel journal 2002-01, Vol.69 (1), p.117
Main Author: Rea, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attorneys
Beneficiaries
Causality
Court decisions
Court hearings & proceedings
Courts of appeals
Juries
Legal malpractice
Liability
Negligence
Petitions
Probate
Probate courts
State court decisions
Trials
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In a potentially troublesome decision for attorneys facing a malpractice suit, Lombardo v. Hysentruyt, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 (Cal.App. 2001), the California Court of Appeal, First District, reversed and remanded a nonsuit in a legal malpractice case in which the trial judge had ruled that the attorney's malpractice had not caused non-speculative damage. In so doing, the court omitted to discuss or mention a line of California cases addressing the issue of speculative causation in legal malpractice actions.
ISSN:0895-0016
2376-3906