What is the test for successful legal malpractice claims?

To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must prove "'a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury'" and "'actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence.'" (Namikas v. Miller (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1581.) "'In the legal malpractice context, the elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked.' [Citation.] The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the attorney's negligent acts or

Page 18

omissions, he would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action in which the malpractice allegedly occurred. [Citations.] This standard requires a 'trial-within-a-trial' of the underlying case, in which the malpractice jury must decide what a reasonable jury or court would have done if the underlying matter had been tried instead of settled. [Citation.] This method '"is the most effective safeguard yet devised against speculative and conjectural claims. . . . It is a standard of proof designed to limit damages to those actually caused by a professional's malfeasance."'" (Id. at p. 1582; see Viner v. Sweet (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 [requiring the plaintiff to "establish that but for the alleged negligence of the defendant attorney, the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement" serves "the essential purpose of ensuring that damages awarded for the attorney's malpractice actually have been caused by the malpractice"].)