And yet they say no one reads law review articles anymore.
Professor Vincent Johnson of St. Mary's writes a law review article in 2018 that says that there are some California cases that say that you've got to prove certain types of legal malpractice cases to a "legal certainty" but that the correct way to read those cases is that they only apply the typical rule that plaintiff must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. The article's not published in an especially prestigious law review -- it's published in a secondary journal at Professor Johnson's home institution -- but its published.
Lo and behold, in 2020, there's an actual case that squarely raises the precise issue on which Professor Johnson opines. And to resolve that dispute, the Court of Appeal repeatedly cites and mentions him and his article to say, essentially, that Professor Johnson gets it exactly right, for exactly the reasons he articulates.
Good to see that law professors can be useful. On occasion.
