Please google search one casetext website the case Viner v. Sweet ,…

Please google search one casetext website the case Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 and answer the following question below:
What three reasons did the Court of Appeal give for applying the but-for test to litigation malpractice, but not to transactional malpractice?
What do Defendants contend that the Viners would have to show to win a claim for negligence against Defendants?
What is the purpose of the but-for test in the context of legal malpractice?
Did the court agree with the Court of Appeal that litigation and transaction are distinct and should be treated differently? Why?
Is a plaintiff allowed to use circumstantial evidence to prove legal malpractice?
Did this court find that the but-for test applied to both litigation and transactional malpractice?

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount