What is the case-within-a-case method?

If you have been involved in a legal malpractice case, you may feel deceived and abandoned by the person you appointed to protect your best interests. Whether the attorney you hired to represent you neglected to file the correct documents, pursue the best route of action or used some other form of bad lawyering, you have the right to file a claim against them. There are several methods you can use to prove the attorney was negligent in his or her actions. One involves the case-within-a-case method.

In addition to proving legal malpractice in these types of cases, plaintiffs are forced to show that they would have won the underlying case had the attorney represented them appropriately. While some people believe this to be difficult, as they are then arguing two cases instead of one, others believe that there are benefits to this method. The defendant attorney must give evidence that the plaintiff would have lost the original case, and this can be hard to do in some instances.

During the legal malpractice trial, plaintiffs may be asked to recreate the trial, present evidence and call witness, much like they would have during the original trial. The judge or jury may then determine whether the plaintiff would have had a better outcome should they have been represented by a different attorney and whether legal malpractice was indeed involved in the case. As with any case, the best method is dependent on the situation at hand, as well as the details surrounding the matter.

This information is intended to educate and should not be taken as legal advice.