Feldesman v. McGovern

In Feldesman v. McGovern (1941) 44 Cal. App. 2d 566, the plaintiff sued his attorney for failure to file a petition for discharge in bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal explained that 0 the plaintiff in a malpractice action must prove the attorney's proper performance "would have resulted beneficially to the client." ( Id. at p. 568.) The court reiterated the language of Lally v. Kuster (1918) requiring the plaintiff to prove that " ' "the debt could, or would, have been collected . . ." ' " ( id. at p. 569) and that the debtor "was solvent and the judgment would have been collected" ( id. at p. 570).