Appellant raises two issues in appealing the summary judgment the district court granted in her legal malpractice case: (1) *900 whether the court presented sufficient evidence of causation to warrant submission of the causation issue to a trier of fact; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to add two entities she owned as additional parties plaintiff.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the relevant portions of the record, we are convinced — for the reasons stated in the court’s December 2, 2005 order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment — that appellant cannot prevail on the causation issue. And for the reasons stated in the court’s November 30, 2005 order, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend.

AFFIRMED.