Originally published by David Coale.
The “case-within-a-case” requirement for a legal-malpractice claim led to affirmance of a defense summary judgment: “While [the expert’s] opinion provides examples of steps independent counsel could have taken on [Plaintiff’s] behalf, we conclude his opinion that the outcome would have been different is speculative and conclusory. . . . [His] testimony may raise an inference that a different attorney might have more aggressively pursued a temporary injunction to prevent [the bank] from foreclosing, but whether the trial court would have granted a request for an injunction is entirely speculative; as is [his] opinion that had the temporary injunction against [Plaintiff] been denied, [Plaintiff] would have re-financed . . . or sold . . . to a different buyer at a higher purchase price.” No. 05-18-00467-CV (July 3, 2019) (mem. op.) (emphasis added).
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2LQPfQl
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment