Court Opinion

ID: 9843464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:39:29.885862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:47.524920
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SHEEHY,
concurring specially:
I concur in the result here and especially concur that in order to state a claim against an attorney for malpractice, the client must show that except for the alleged malpractice, the result of the suit would have been in favor of the client. This is the holding in Brosil v. Stockton (1970), 105 Ariz. 574, 468 P.2d 933, 936, and my dissent in R. H. Schwartz v. Hanrahan (1983), 207 Mont. 105, 672 P.2d 1116, 1118.
I would hold that the claims of the plaintiff were barred under our decision in Nordlund v. School District No. 14 (1987), 227 Mont. 402, 738 P.2d 1299, as the opinion here states. Since I dissented in Story v. City of Bozeman (1990), [242] Mont. [436,] 791 P.2d 767, I see no application of that case to the present case.