Holding that the question is whether "the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited" (citation and punctuation omitted)
Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles
Holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion
Holding that the question for the probable cause analysis in a malicious prosecution action is whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim was tenable
Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself
Finding that a plaintiff must show "but for the alleged malpractice, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result"
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6 Cited 600 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that limitations period on plaintiff's legal malpractice action did not begin until plaintiff had suffered "appreciable harm" and "mere breach of . . . duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm— not yet realized—does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence"
Providing that "all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, for failure to employ, and for libels, shall be commenced within one year next after the cause of such action accrued and not after"
The periods prescribed for the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of real property, are as follows: Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 335 Enacted 1872.