Hammel v. McCulloch

In order to prevail in a legal malpractice action, “[A] plaintiff must show, not only that the attorney was negligent, but also that the result would have been different except for the negligence.” Watson v. Meltzer, 247 Or App 558, 565, 270 P3d 289 (2011).

Plaintiffs appealed from the trial court’s order of summary judgment holding that Plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case for legal malpractice against Defendants. Plaintiffs assigned error to the trial court’s finding that no reasonable juror could infer that Plaintiffs would have received damages if Defendants had sued additional parties in the underlying suits. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the trial court “ignored” declarations from attorneys representing Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs would have received settlement funds but for Defendant’s failure to file suit. In response, Defendants argued that the declarations were inadmissible because they lacked foundation and were speculative. In order to prevail in a legal malpractice action, “[A] plaintiff must show, not only that the attorney was negligent, but also that the result would have been different except for the negligence.” Watson v. Meltzer, 247 Or App 558, 565, 270 P3d 289 (2011). The Court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and held that a reasonable juror could find, without impermissible speculation, that Defendant’s failure to sue additional parties caused harm to Plaintiffs, as a reasonable juror could infer that, but for that failure, Plaintiffs would have received a percentage of the settlement funds. Reversed and remanded.