Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Citation
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Parent Document
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2025-03-14
Other Sections in This Document (56)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
- Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Full Text
1,717 chars22
directly caused by an attorney’s conduct in breach of his fiduciary
duties. (See Knutson v. Foster (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1096;
Stanley, at p. 1097; Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984)
154 Cal.App.3d 688, 718 (Betts); see also Enea v. Superior Court
(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567; Jahn v. Brickey (1985)
168 Cal.App.3d 399, 406 [plaintiff was entitled to damages for
emotional distress where he “prevailed on the tort theories of
fraud and breach of fiduciary relationship”].)
By contrast, “[e]motional distress damages ordinarily are
not recoverable in a legal malpractice action if the representation
concerned primarily the client’s economic interests and the
emotional injury derived from an economic loss.” (Ovando v.
County of Los Angeles (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 42, 73 (Ovando).)
In all respects, “where a plaintiff sufficiently alleges intentional
or affirmative misconduct by an attorney or noneconomic injury
resulting from an attorney’s professional negligence, recovery of
emotional distress damages is permitted.” (Smith v. Superior
Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1040.)
“‘Whether a plaintiff is “entitled to a particular measure of
damages is a question of law subject to de novo review.
[Citations.] The amount of damages, on the other hand, is a fact
question . . . [and] an award of damages will not be disturbed if it
is supported by substantial evidence.”’” (Madani v. Rabinowitz
(2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 602, 610.) We likewise independently
review the meaning of a court order or judgment because it is a
question of law. (See The Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Chase Bank,
N.A. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 182, 203; In re Ins. Installment Fee
Cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1429.)