Alaska Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 8.11

The defendant was the plaintiff’s attorney in a prior case. The plaintiff claims that [he] [she] [it] was harmed because the defendant was negligent in that representation.

To find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, you must decide that it is more likely true than not true that:

(1) the defendant was negligent in the prior case;

(2) the defendant’s negligence was a legal cause of the plaintiff's harm; and

(3) the plaintiff was actually harmed.

I will now define negligence and legal cause for you and tell you how to determine actual harm.

An attorney is negligent in the representation of a client if the attorney fails to use the skill, prudence, and diligence that other attorneys commonly possess and would exercise under similar circumstances.

A legal cause of harm is an act or failure to act which is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. An act or failure to act is a substantial factor in bringing about harm if it is more likely true than not true that:

(1) the act or failure to act was so important in bringing about the harm that a reasonable person would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it; and

(2) the harm would not have occurred but for the act or failure to act.

To determine whether there was actual harm, you must decide whether the plaintiff would have received more favorable results in the prior case if the defendant had not been negligent. [You have heard expert testimony on this issue.] [Thus, you must decide the outcome of that case as if you were the jury in that case. I will give you instructions later which will tell you how to determine what the outcome of that case would have been.]