I understand that you would have to prove damages and these damages occurred because of an attorney negligence. What I don't quite understand is the part where you have to prove that the outcome of have been different (in your favor).
Also some information I have gathered online states that an outcome would have been different at trial or something similar. I have heard that some (if not most) cases settle very close to trial. It seems unfair for a person to have to prove an trial outcome when most don't see trial. Also what happens in a malpractice case where the a settlement was reverse because of fraud?
The plaintiff doesn't necessarily have to prove a trial outcome. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove damages, whether the value of the property, the lawsuit or whatever may have been lost due to the lawyer's negligence or other fault. If the defense is convinced enough of the value of the underlying claim, they will settle. If not, it's necessary for the plaintiff to try the case within the case. That rarely happens, but if plaintiffs didn't have that burden they could just recover damages for the asking whenever a lawyer fell down on the job.
Any opinions stated in response to Avvo questions are based upon the facts stated in the question. Responses to Avvo questions are for general information purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice.
It really isn't predicting a different outcome. It's demonstrating that the result would have been different absent the attorney's negligence. Sometimes, this is simple, and the attorney's carrier settles quickly recognizing the negligence. For example, we handled a case recently where the attorney failed to interpose what would have been a valid Statute of Limitations defense, not realizing that the Statute of Limitation ran from the making of the Promissory Note, not the demand for payment. The carrier answered, and settled within two months. With negligence cases, it is much harder to prove malpractice, and attorneys are much more careful taking that type of malpractice case. I'm not following how a settlement can be reversed because of fraud. You need to elaborate.
A legal malpractice case can be considered a case within a case. An insurance company is going to make every excuse for not paying if you try to settle this yourself, thus, do yourself a favor and retain a legal malpractice lawyer. For example, this is from the Lassen Law Firm website: types of Legal Malpractice Claims in Pennsylvania:Failure to properly investigate case; Failure to comply with statute of limitations;Failure to follow accepted practices in litigation;Failure to follow filing requirements of court;; Failure to appear at court hearing; Failure to sue all parties;Failure to pursue all causes of action;Failure to get an expert report on time; Failure to disclose mistakes to client; Breach of fiduciary duty; Conflict of interest; Made a transactional error; Charging legal fees without disclosing them beforehand; Billing malfeasance; Client escrow funds malfeasance; Committed an ethics violation.
Good luck to you.
Licensed in PA & NJ. 29% Contingency Fee. Phone: 215-510-6755 www.InjuryLawyerPhiladelphia.com
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline