In many areas of law (contractual matters, tort claims, personal injury complaints and other legal spheres), a complex chain of factors must be considered and established in any lawsuit where a plaintiff seeks to establish liability on the part of a negligent or otherwise wrongdoing actor.
A threshold and obvious consideration, of course, extends to whether an alleged wrongdoer even had a duty to safeguard the interests of an injured party.
And where that duty is established (where a doctor examines a patient, for example, or where an attorney represents a client in a legal matter), it must be additionally proven to a court's satisfaction that the defendant breached it.
Using legal representation as an example, it must be proven that an attorney with a duty to act in accordance with a known legal standard fell beneath that threshold level of recognized performance.
And even that is not enough. A plaintiff must additionally establish that the rendering of substandard legal representation brought about subsequent harm that would not have resulted had the attorney simply acted in a competent manner.
That is, there must be a provable nexus between substandard performance on the one hand and personal harm suffered on the other.
The bottom line regarding any legal malpractice allegation is that all the required legal components -- duty, breach and a connected harm -- must be proven in order for an injured party to successfully pursue a damage claim.
The attorneys at Glickman & Glickman (with offices in both Beverly Hills and San Francisco) represent clients across California who have suffered pecuniary or other harm from the delivery of substandard legal care. We invite readers' questions and comments, striving at all times to provide immaculate representation that promotes clients' best interests and an optimal legal recovery.