Chan

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant Bill S. Chan brought a legal malpractice action against his former attorney, David R. Packard, alleging that Packard had breached the standard of care in connection with the underlying litigation, which arose from Chan’s dispute with his neighbors regarding tree cutting. After a jury trial in the legal malpractice action, judgment was entered in Packard’s favor. On appeal, Chan contends that the trial court committed reversible evidentiary error by granting Packard’s motion in limine No. 6 and excluding evidence of the threats that Packard allegedly made to coerce Chan into settling the underlying action. For reasons that we explain, we determine that Chan has failed to meet his burden as an appellant to show that the claimed evidentiary error was prejudicial. We will therefore affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Chan v. Lund The lawsuit that underlies the present legal malpractice action was the subject of this court’s decision in Chan v. Lund (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1159. The neighbor dispute that gave rise to the lawsuit was described in Chan v. Lund as follows: “This five-year-old dispute arises out of the cutting of a…