findings of fact, the substance of her appeal also challenges the court’s conclusions of law regarding "no duty" justification, and privilege. However, we affirm the trial court's judgment based on its finding that Martin-Simon sustained no damages. Therefore, we need not address Martin-Simon’s challenge to these conclusions of law. See Hitzelberger v. Samedan Oil Corp., 948 S.W.2d 497, 503 (Tex. App. — Waco 1997, pet. denied) ("We review the conclusions of law de novo to determine their correctness ... although if the trial court's conclusions are erroneous, the judgment will not be reversed if the controlling findings of fact support a correct legal theory.”) (citations omitted). 2 . See Estate of Arlitt v. Paterson, 995 S.W.2d 713, 721 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Stephenson, 963
holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees holding that although attorneys fees are usually not recoverable unless permitted by statute or contract contractual or statutory authorization was not necessary in a malpractice claim to recover attorneys fees and costs as damages holding that attorneys fees and costs expended as a result of an attorneys alleged malpractice constitute legallycognizable damages for purposes of stating a claim for such malpractice holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered holding party not entitled to recover attorneys fees without also recoveringdamages for breach of contract in part because attorney fees are in the nature of costs not damages