On a typical/average Legal Malpractice case (where counsel intentionally failed to oppose motions, & abandoned ...
...a Breach of Contract resulting in physical damages/ Defamation/ Fraud/ Elder Financial Abuse/ Appropriation of Rights CIVIL CASE, for conflict of interest, all without proper advance notice to Elderly/Disabled Plaintiff), is a Motion For Trial Preference (CCP 36 et seq.) an advantage for Plaintiff in the Legal Malpractice case? or would it be better for Plaintiff to go through full discovery of Depositions, Motion For Summary Judgment? I know a Legal Malpractice case is a "Case within a Case" and the underlying action must be re-litigated with Expert witness testimonies, but will moving for Trial Preference make the defendant more willing to settle before Trial, or would it be better to have defendant settle before Summary Judgment?
This question asks about legal strategy, while it does not state facts of the case, where the case is now, etc. As a result, it is recommended you consult with an attorney who can review the entire fact pattern to assess the best method/s for your case, which in some cases may render litigation unnecessary, since settlement and/or negotiation might be an option.