Sukoff

Sukoff v. Lemkin

Bad Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 810·202 Cal. App. 3d 740·249 Cal. Rptr. 42
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1988G003267California4,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

In 1976, after 10 years of marriage, Virginia Sukoff and her husband separated. After trial, the court awarded Sukoff’s husband his medical practice, pension and profit sharing plan, a San Diego condominium, a partnership interest in a professional building, and certain bank accounts. Sukoff, a psychologist, received her professional practice, bank accounts, the family residence, and a note to equalize the property division. The parties’ assets totalled approximately $1 million. The judgment was appealed, but in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Sukoff’s trial lawyer, E. Robert Lemkin, sued her for fees; she cross-complained alleging malpractice. The cases were consolidated; after three weeks of trial, the parties, waiving jury consideration of the fee issue, submitted the malpractice action to the jury. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Sukoff and awarded her $90,000 in compensatory damages for Lemkin’s negligence. Sukoff also asked the trial court to allow her to include attorney fees as part of her damages and sought prejudgment interest. The trial court denied this request. Sukoff and Lemkin both appeal.

I

Lemkin argues the trial…

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.