The Third District affirmed the grant of summary judgment in a legal malpractice case. The court held that plaintiff had no evidence that she would have been successful in the underlying case within a case but for the legal malpractice because she failed to satisfy the “discrepancy rule” for an insurance case. The court also held that there was no evidence that the settlement of the underlying case was depressed by the alleged malpractice because the plaintiff settled her underlying case before the court dismissed it. Thus, there was no evidence of either causation or damage.
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)