McDaniel

McDaniel v. Gile

Bad Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 500·230 Cal. App. 3d 363·281 Cal. Rptr. 242·91 Daily Journal DAR 5951·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3792
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1991B048292California4,008 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Defendant and cross-complainant Patricia Gile, who was represented in her marital dissolution action by plaintiff and cross-defendant attorney James H. McDaniel, appeals from a judgment entered after a court trial in favor of plaintiff on his complaint for legal fees and on her cross-complaint for legal malpractice and sexual harassment. Defendant contends that the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of certain issues was improperly granted. We conclude that triable issues of fact exist as to: (1) whether an attorney’s withholding of legal services to gain sexual favors from a client, as well as sexually harassing a client, constitute outrageous conduct for purposes of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (2) whether an attorney’s professional abandonment of a client and delay in providing services when the client refuses to give the attorney sexual favors is below the standard of care and skill of members of the profession for purposes of a cause of action for legal malpractice. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment with directions to set aside the order granting summary adjudication.

Procedural…

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.