therefore, conclude that no further fee is due from the Levines to their attorneys. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for the Levines. Justice OWEN filed a concurring opinion. Justice HECHT filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice ABBOTT joined. 1 . (Emphasis added.) 2 . Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 35 (1998) (emphasis added). 3 . See id. cmt. d. 4 . 96 F.2d 135, 137 (2nd Cir.1938). 5 . 136 F.Supp. 395, 403 (W.D.Ark.1955). 6 . 91 A. 536, 542 (Del.Super.Ct.1914) 7 . Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 18 cmt. h (1998). 8 . In re Myers, 663 N.E.2d 771, 774-75 (Ind.1996). 9 . Bennett v. Potter, 180 Cal. 736, 183 P. 156, 158 (1919). 10 . See Hamilton v. Ford Motor Co., 636 F.2d 745, 748 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Kirwin v. McIntosh, 153 Kan. 395, 110 P.2d
holding that this principle applies with even greater force in the attorneyclient context because the client has had no legal training recognizing principle recognizing this principle as a settled rule recognizing this principle in the childpornography context recognizing this principle in the failure to hire context