Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of establishing “the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of”
• finding that plaintiff had established the first element of a legal malpractice claim because the parties had an attorney-client relationship, and the defendant “owed a duty to [the plaintiff] based on that relationship”
• rejecting an attempt to “recast [a] malpractice argument as also breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty”
• whether an attorney’s strategy was reasonable in the context of the judgmental immunity “requires consideration of the state of the law” at the time the attorney made the strategic decision
• the question is “whether that professional judgment was reasonable at the time it was made, not whether a different strategy may have resulted in a more favorable judgment” for the client
• D.C. “law requires a plaintiff to establish three elements to state a claim of malpractice: the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).