Judges and Judiciary
Mar. 18, 2025
Justice calls for rethink on legal malpractice damages rule
In a concurring opinion, Justice John L. Segal of the 2nd District Court of Appeal questioned why plaintiffs must prove a judgment in the underlying case would have been collectible, arguing the rule is legally and economically flawed.
A justice has suggested that it was time for the Court of Appeal to revisit a 65-year-old precedent limiting legal malpractice damages.
"Why does a legal malpractice plaintiff have to prove a judgment in the underlying action would have been collectible?" Justice John L. Segal wrote in a concurring opinion. "And is that a good rule?"
Segal, who sits on the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 7, agreed that according to current law, client Elly-Joy ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In