In Campbell v. Magana (1960) 184 Cal. App. 2d 751, the plaintiff filed a personal injury action but defendant attorneys negligently allowed the mandatory five-year period for bringing the case to trial to run. ( Campbell v. Magana, supra, 184 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 759-760.) Nonetheless, the plaintiff was not damaged by counsel's malpractice because she had no good cause of action against the defendant in the underlying action. ( Id., at p. 763.) Therefore, careful management of the underlying action would not have resulted in recovery of a favorable judgment. ( Id., at p. 754.) The trial court concluded that the malpractice of plaintiff's attorney caused no damage, but plaintiff asserted her case nonetheless had a settlement or nuisance value. (Id. at pp. 753-754.) The appellate court unequivocally rejected this claim: "This argument cannot prevail for at least two reasons; first, it advances speculative values as a measure of recovery; and second, it violates an established rule of this state (and most others) that one who establishes malpractice on the part of his attorney in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit must also prove that careful management of it would have resulted in recovery of a favorable judgment and collection or same or, in case of a defense, that proper handling would have resulted in a judgment for the client; that there is no damage in the absence of the latter elements . . . ." (Id. at p. 754.) In Campbell, the record disclosed a settlement offer of $ 350, as well as plaintiff's statement that she would not accept anything less than $ 100,000. The court concluded: "Any possibility of adjustment outside of court plainly fell in the category of speculation, conjecture and contingency. The basic rules concerning damages preclude recognition of this type of recovery." (Campbell v. Magana, supra, 184 Cal. App. 2d at p. 758.)