What is the test for establishing that a judgment is presumed correct?

"'It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that the judgment appealed from is presumed correct and "'"all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness."' [Citation.]" [Citation.] An appellant must provide an argument and legal authority to support his contentions. This burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. "Issues do not have a life of their own: If they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . . waived." [Citation.] It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799.)

Page 7

Appellants have failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining respondent's evidentiary objections.

Although not pointed out by appellants, the elements of a legal malpractice cause of action are (1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence. (Ambriz v. Kelegian (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1531; Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, 1199.)