In Sukoff v. Lemkin (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 740, the plaintiff sued her lawyer for malpractice, claiming his negligence in preparing the case and obtaining the required evidence led the family law court to undervalue her share in her ex-husband's assets. The Court of Appeal reversed a jury award to the plaintiff and the trial court's order denying a defense motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court reasoned the plaintiff had failed to produce the evidence that she said her former lawyer should have obtained in the underlying action. Because the plaintiff was obliged to retry the underlying action, she had the burden to establish that additional discovery would have resulted in a higher award to her. Accordingly, she needed to produce at the malpractice trial the evidence she claimed her lawyer negligently failed to uncover. (Id. at pp. 744-745.) Her failure to produce the documentary evidence she claimed her lawyer missed (which presumably would have been discoverable in the malpractice action) was fatal to her proof that the lawyer's neglect was the proximate cause of the lower property valuation. (Id. at pp. 746-748.)