If an attorney misses a deadline or otherwise fails to act as required, it could end up costing the client the entire case. The courts hold that the client's remedy is to sue for malpractice and that the other side should not have to suffer the mistakes of the client's agent. This could result in the "wrong" side winning a case from a substantive point of view because of a procedural error. Should procedure prevail over substance? Do you believe the court has struck the right balance.