In Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1052, the court found the malpractice plaintiff suffered no tort damages where no claims had been made against him based on the alleged malpractice. (Orrick, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1057-1061.) In that case, the plaintiff sued his former attorneys (Orrick) alleging they failed to properly advise him regarding a settlement with his former wife and omitted critical terms from the settlement agreement. (Id. at pp. 1054-1056.) Orrick moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not prove he suffered recoverable damages. (Id. at p. 1055.) In opposing the motion, the plaintiff claimed he suffered injury in the form of legal fees spent in an attempt to overturn the settlement, and argued this action was necessary because "he was exposed to future claims." (Id. at pp. 1056, 1058.) The Orrick court held these legal fees were not recoverable as tort damages because there was no evidence his former wife was claiming benefits based on the omitted terms or that any other claims were asserted based on those omissions. (Id. at pp. 1057-1061.)