Though the concurrence calls for a change and a footnote in the majority opinion notes many states place the burden on the defense, this decision follows other California Court of Appeal decisions in holding that as part of the plaintiff’s burden in proving causation and damages in a legal malpractice action based on bungling the plaintiff’s claim in the underlying litigation, the plaintiff must prove not only that she would have recovered a judgment against the defendant but also that the judgment was collectible. Here, the plaintiff presented no evidence the defendant could pay the judgment, so the judgment in her favor on her malpractice claim had to be reversed.