Lawwly

Viner v. Sweet

Supreme Court of California

70 P.3d 1046 (2003)

Relevant factsFree

The Viners (plaintiffs) retained attorney Charles Sweet and his firm (defendant) to represent them in selling their company, Dove Audio, to Media Equities International; after the sale, the Viners sued Sweet for malpractice on seven counts of negligence, and a jury awarded them damages. Sweet argued on appeal that the traditional but-for causation standard required the Viners to prove his negligence was the only reason they didn't get a better deal or walk away entirely, while the Viners argued a different causation standard should apply to transactional malpractice because proving but-for causation would require impractical testimony from adversarial deal parties. The court of appeals rejected Sweet's arguments and largely upheld the jury's award; Sweet petitioned for review.

IssueFree

Whether, in a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove that the injuries complained of would not have occurred but for the negligence of the plaintiff's counsel.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.