What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case has sustained actual injury?

(1) Determining when a plaintiff in a legal malpractice case has sustained actual injury is predominantly a factual rather than a legal determination. (Lead opn., ante, at p. 595 of 46 Cal.Rptr.2d, at p. 1206 of 904 P.2d; Budd v. Nixen, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 202, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433.)

(2) The determination of actual injury does not depend upon or require a prior adjudication, judgment, or settlement. (Lead opn., ante, at pp. 599-600, of 46 Cal.Rptr.2d, at pp. 1210-1211 of 904 P.2d; Budd v. Nixen, supra, 6 Cal.3d at pp. 197-204, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433.)

(3) An injury is not "actual" if it causes only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm. (Lead opn., ante, at pp. 597-598, of 46 Cal.Rptr.2d, at pp. 1208-1209 of 904 P.2d; Budd v. Nixen, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 200, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433.)

(4) It is the fact of injury and not the amount of injury that is the relevant consideration. (Lead opn., ante, at p. 597 of 46 Cal.Rptr.2d, at p. 1208 of 904 P.2d; Budd v. Nixen, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 201, 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433.)