Shevitz

Shevitz v. Frankel CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 2015A141909California3,658 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

On November 20, 2013, Shevitz filed a first amended complaint for damages (the complaint) against Frankel, alleging causes of action for (1) gross negligence and recklessness, (2) legal malpractice based on negligence, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) breach of contract, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (7) slander.2 The complaint contained the following factual allegations, which were incorporated into each of the seven causes of action. Shevitz had practiced as a licensed MFT for approximately 20 years, until her license was revoked on January 5, 2012. For many years, Frankel, a licensed attorney, as well as a licensed therapist, had provided consulting and legal services to Shevitz on issues arising in her MFT practice. On or about July 15, 2010, Shevitz retained Frankel to represent her in the renewal of both her MFT license, issued by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, Department of Consumer Affairs (Board) and her malpractice insurance. Frankel knew that Shevitz was living in a hotel after being flooded out of her house and that she “was living through a period of personal turmoil and…

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.