Opinion ID: 2570635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Causation in the Legal Malpractice Context

Text: ¶ 25 Although each of the theories discussed above deals with a different type of harm, the same standard of causation applies whether the alleged wrong is a negligent act, a fiduciary breach, or even a contractual breach. Kilpatrick, 909 P.2d at 1291. It is causation that is at issue here. ¶ 26 We have long recognized that the standard for causation in a legal malpractice action requires [t]he client ... [to] show that if the attorney had adhered to the ordinary standards of professional competence and had done the act he failed to do or not done the act complained about, the client would have benefited. Harline v. Barker, 854 P.2d 595, 600 (Utah Ct.App. 1993). In Kilpatrick, the court of appeals required that in order to meet the standard for causation for a breach of fiduciary duty in a legal malpractice action, clients must show that if the attorney had adhered to the ordinary standards of professional conduct ... the client would have benefited. 909 P.2d at 1291 (emphasis omitted). Similarly in a breach of contract action, the non-breaching party is required to show that the breach proximately caused the damages sought. Eleopulos v. McFarland & Hullinger, LLC, 2006 UT App 352, ¶ 13, 145 P.3d 1157. Generally, an award of damages in a breach of contract case attempts to place the aggrieved party in the same economic position the party would have been in if the contract was not breached. Id. ¶ 10 (citing Mahmood v. Ross (In re Estate of Ross), 1999 UT 104, ¶ 19, 990 P.2d 933). This burden of establishing causation remains the same for all three legal malpractice theories. Under each theory, the client is required to show that absent the conduct complained of whether it is a breach of an express promise or fiduciary duty by the attorney or non-adherence to proper professional conduct the client would have benefitted. Thus, in this case, Slusher must show that absent Appellees' conduct, he would have received more than he ultimately received from the Campbell litigation.