The Viners sued their former attorneys, Charles A. Sweet and his firm, Williams & Connolly ("firm" or "law firm"), for negligently representing them in the sale of their ownership interest in Dove Audio, Inc. ("Dove"), to Media Equities International ("MEI") and termination of their employment with Dove. The jury found in the Viners’ favor on each of seven malpractice claims and awarded them $13,291,532 in damages. The law firm appealed and the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a transactional malpractice action is required to show that, but for the alleged malpractice, plaintiff would have more likely than not obtained a more favorable result. Since this standard was more pro-defendant than the one that the trial court had used, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On remand, the appellate court ruled that the Viners had only provided sufficient evidence on two of the seven claims, determined that the trial court erred in denying the firm's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the other five claims, and reduced the damage award to $515,760.