CA Underlying corporate transaction
Facts: Plaintiffs retained Defendant and his law firm for a corporate transaction. After negotiating an employment termination agreement, the Plaintiffs brought a legal malpractice suit alleging seven claims, encompassing and array of agreements stemming from negligent representation / misrepresentations by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs. A jury awarded the Plaintiffs damages on all seven claims, with the Court of Appeals reducing the damages award. On appeal, the Defendants contend that in a transactional
malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that but for the alleged malpractice, a more favorable result would have been obtained, and that the Plaintiffs would not have entered into the transaction (a “no deal” scenario).
Issue: Must the plaintiff in a transactional legal malpractice action prove that a more favorable result would have been obtained but for the alleged negligence?
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court of California held that:
1) there is “nothing distinctive about transactional malpractice that would justify a relaxation of, or departure from, the well-established requirement in negligence cases that the plaintiff establish causation by showing either (1) but for the negligence, the harm would not have occurred, or (2) the negligence was a concurrent independent cause of the harm”;
2) “Determining causation always requires evaluation of hypothetical situations concerning what might have happened, but did not. In both litigation and transactional malpractice cases, the crucial causation inquiry is what would have happened if the defendant attorney had not been negligent”;
3) There must be investigation into what would have happened but for the lawyer’s alleged negligence.
Lesson: Plaintiffs seeking damages in an action for legal malpractice stemming from an underlying transaction must show both but for causation, just as in litigation malpractice actions. A malpractice case will not be successful if the Plaintiff does not prove that the underlying case had merit.