Loss of Chance Doctrine May Apply to Legal Malpractice
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Lawyers for the Profession® Alert | 2 min read
Sep 16, 2010
Rivers v. Moore, Myers & Garland, LLC, 236 P.3d 284 (2010)
Brief Summary
The Wyoming Supreme Court held that the “loss of chance” doctrine could not be applied to assess damages in a legal malpractice action. The Court left open the possibility that the doctrine could apply, under different circumstances, in the legal malpractice context.
Complete Summary
In the matter underlying this legal malpractice action, plaintiff (the client) retained defendant law firm to acquire property on which the client planned to build a 10,000 square foot building. Due to a restrictive covenant, the client was ultimately limited to 5,000 square feet. The client then brought the present action alleging, inter alia, expectancy damages based on his inability to build a larger building. The firm moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of expectancy damages, and the trial court granted this motion. The client appealed, arguing, inter alia, that issues of fact remained under the loss of chance doctrine.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, and held that the loss of chance doctrine did not apply to this case. But the Court left open the possibility that the doctrine could apply elsewhere in the legal malpractice context. The loss of chance doctrine, which the Court had previously applied only in medical malpractice cases, allows a plaintiff to recover for reduced chances of survival.
The Supreme Court framed the doctrine here as an alternative to the usual case-within-a-case approach to legal malpractice. Whereas loss of chance requires the calculation of odds based on extensive available data, the high court noted, the case-within-a-case approach involves a one-off determination based primarily on human interactions. In the absence of statistical information relevant to the likelihood of prevailing on a specific legal claim, the Court held that basing damages on loss of chance was too speculative, and that the consequent failure of proof on causation entitled the law firm to summary judgment.
Significance of Opinion
This opinion clarifies that the availability of the loss of chance doctrine turns on the availability of relevant statistical data. It leaves open the possibility of applying the doctrine only to the extent such data could be available as to certain legal claims.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



