Walter Olson at Overlawyered brings us this reminder of the evolution of medical malpractice and legal malpractice.  They spring from the same nexus, but move on to different outcomes, rules, and principals.  Could this be because judges decide the law for doctors and lawyers differently?

"In a key victory for plaintiffs and their lawyers, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has for the first time adopted the “loss of a chance” doctrine, which allows plaintiffs to recover money even without having to show that it was more likely than not that the charged medical negligence made the difference in their recovery or survival. (Denise Lavoie, “Doctor held liable for a ‘loss of chance’”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 24). When Medical Economics surveyed the field two years ago, they found that about half the state had accepted the more liberal doctrine, which runs counter to the Anglo-American “more likely than not” prerequisite for establishing causation. More on the inexact and contradictory standards used in such cases here.

Readers of this site will not be the least surprised that American courts have shown little or no interest in extending the “loss of a chance” doctrine for the benefit of plaintiffs in legal malpractice cases filed against attorneys whose inattention might have (but probably didn’t) deprive their clients of a favorable outcome in court proceedings. "