In Nkansah v. Kleinbard, (2:19-cv-04472-TJS), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently decided an important legal malpractice matter. It is no great mystery that a plaintiff must be able to prove a case-within-a-case, to prevail in an action against prior counsel for their alleged misdeeds. However, parsing out that likelihood of success in the underlying matter, and whether the alleged errors even rise to the level of legal malpractice, can be tricky business, as the Nkansah case demonstrates. Is it enough to merely say that had it not been for the errors of one's former attorneys, the client must have suffered cognizable harm? Let's explore the facts in Nkansah, to make sense of what the lawyers' supposed errors were and whether the plaintiff was able to make out a viable case.