In a legal malpractice case, which term is used to describe the requirement that the plaintiff must prove that but for the attorney's negligence the client would have won?

• A. Negligence
• B. Disbarment
• C. Proving a case within a case
• D. Contingency fee

Answer: (C)

This question hinges on causation in a legal malpractice claim—the plaintiff must show that but for the attorney’s negligence, the client would have won the underlying case. This is often described as proving a case within a case: you’re establishing that, absent the attorney’s error, the original matter would have yielded a favorable result. If the malpractice didn’t change the outcome of the underlying lawsuit, there’s no damages. The other options miss this link: negligence describes the attorney’s conduct, not the causal result; disbarment is about disciplinary action, not proving a outcome in the underlying case; and contingency fee is unrelated to whether the client would have won.