|
P1005 In a malpractice action against attorney #2 for alleged negligence in handling a prior malpractice action against attorney #1, plaintiff is required to establish not only that attorney #2 should have gotten a better result in the prior action, but that a judgment for more than plaintiff received would have been collectible, so discovery may be ordered of information regarding attorney #1's insurance coverage and financial status since this information is relevant to collectibility and is likely to lead to admissible evidence.CitationHECHT v SUPER.CT (Third Party Discovery) 137 CA4 579 [See: CCP 2017.210 etseq; CorpC 16956; Garretson v Miller 99 CA4 563, T/AT 7/02; DiPalma v Seldman 27 CA4 1499, T/AT 9/94]
|
|
