The Standard of Proof of Causation in Legal Malpractice Cases
Erik M. Jensen
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Cornell Law Review, Vol. 63, p. 666, 1978
This note argues that the use of a but for standard of causation in legal malpractice cases - i.e., that the plaintiff must show that but for the malpractice he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action - is too stringent, making recovery unreasonably difficult. The note therefore argues for implementation of a lost substantial possibility of recovery standard. This is just a student note, and an old one at that, but a lot of courts and commentators have cited it. In any event, modesty and self-restraint seem to play little role when authors are deciding what to post on SSRN.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 18
Keywords: But for Standard of Causation, Legal Malpractice, Lost Substantial Possibility of Recovery Standard
JEL Classification: K49Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 21, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.890 seconds