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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,865 chars

24
firm breached its duty to its client by failing to disclose material
information and to provide sound advice to its client. Instead, it
actively worked to protect the insurance carrier’s interest over
those of its client. This resulted in a judgment against the client
that was well in excess of her policy limits. (Id. at p. 696.) Betts
upheld the award of emotional damages against the law firm,
recognizing “this was not mere negligence in failing to properly
depose an expert witness but rather it was ‘not the type of conduct
to be condoned in the legal profession as far as this court is
concerned.’” (Id. at p. 718.) Stonecroft similarly breached its
duty to Kaushansky and actively worked to protect its own
interests over those of its client.
        Stonecroft does not dispute the above evidence and
findings. It instead relies on the following “key language from
the statement of decision” to argue the court found its conduct
was not intentional: “‘The Court declines to hold that Defendants’
litigation activities on Plaintiff’s behalf were intentional, reckless,
grossly negligent or repeated within the meaning of Rule 1.1 of
the Professional Rules of Conduct.’” We are not persuaded this
statement overrides the trial court’s factual findings and
substantial evidence described above. We do not read the phrase
“litigation activities on Plaintiff’s behalf” to encompass
Stonecroft’s withdrawal. Indeed, Stonecroft’s withdrawal ended
its “litigation activities on Plaintiff’s behalf,” such as they were.
        Nor are we persuaded by Stonecroft’s authorities that
emotional distress damages are not recoverable in attorney
malpractice cases. None of these cases consider whether
emotional distress damages are recoverable in a breach of
fiduciary duty cause of action. (See Ovando, supra,
159 Cal.App.4th 42; Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996)

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text