Camenisch

Camenisch v. Superior Court

Good Law
44 Cal. App. 4th 1689·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 450
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1996A072172California2,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

May a lawyer be held liable for the emotional distress of a client who learns that the attorney’s negligence may have thwarted the client’s tax avoidance goal? We conclude that the law does not recognize a protectable interest in freedom from the emotional distress involved in paying taxes, even if the taxes might have been avoided by skilled legal advice and drafting. The fact that the alleged negligence here did not take place in a litigation context does not defeat the general rule that emotional distress damages are not recoverable when attorney malpractice leads only to economic loss. We grant a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to strike the request for emotional distress damages.

Facts and Procedures

This petition arises from rulings on a demurrer and motion to strike. The complaint alleged that, in 1983, Robert Bums hired Shela Camenisch to prepare trust and estate documents, including a life insurance trust in favor of his daughters, Sharon and Julie. Bums informed Camenisch that he wanted to ensure financial security for his wife and daughters, and that he did not want the proceeds to become a taxable part of his estate. Camenisch…

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.