When speaking of legal malpractice, it is necessarily preliminary to begin discussing the elements. In that discussion, the legal malpractice plaintiff’s burden of proving the case-within-the-case is likewise a primary topic. That is, it is axiomatically thought that the plaintiff—who traditionally carries the burden on all elements—must prove the attorney’s neglect caused the loss of the underlying action and but for that neglect the underlying action would have been successful.
Toward the above end (i.e., the plaintiff’s burden to prove the underlying action), is that paradigm appropriate? Further, is the plaintiff’s burden to prove the underlying action even settled in Pennsylvania?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
