Shenefield

Shenefield v. Kovtun CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 24, 2024D083018California4,852 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

INTRODUCTION

In September 2017, Attorney Karolyn Kovtun (Kovtun) held a meeting in her office with Jennifer Shenefield and her client Mark Shenefield after Mark had been convicted of domestic violence and while a criminal protective

order was in place prohibiting Mark from having any contact with Jennifer.1 During the meeting, Mark and Kovtun verbally and emotionally abused Jennifer, and Kovtun threatened to remove their daughter from Jennifer’s custody if she did not sign a custody agreement she had prepared. Before leaving the meeting, Jennifer signed the agreement and then contacted the police. Kovtun continued to represent Mark, who was criminally charged and convicted of violating the criminal protective order. While Mark’s criminal case was still pending, Kovtun sued Jennifer in small claims court for recording the meeting without her consent, which prompted Jennifer to file a cross-complaint against Kovtun based on her conduct and statements. After two unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motions and related appeals, Kovtun successfully demurred to two of Jennifer’s six causes of action in her second amended verified complaint. Following a two-day bench trial on Jennifer’s remaining…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.