Take a number dept.: on Sept. 23 we reported on an unusual case in which a court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. Now San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has allowed a suit to go forward in which client Vincenzo Rinaldi wants money to compensate him for the emotional distress he says he suffered as a consequence of lawyer Joseph Pisano’s alleged less-than-ideal handling of his divorce. An attorney for Pisano maintains his client “did nothing wrong in handling the divorce” and that, contrary to the suit’s allegations, there was never any doubt as to the validity of Rinaldi’s remarriage. Most courts have disallowed emotional-distress damages in cases alleging legal malpractice, perhaps in part from fear (as with the parallel case of IRS-inflicted emotional distress) of opening floodgates too vast to contemplate. (Pam Smith, “Malpractice Suit Says Divorce Doubt Led to Distress”, The Recorder, Oct. 22). Update Dec. 26: appellate court unwelcoming to emotional-distress claim.
Emotional distress from lawyer’s handling of divorce
Take a number dept.: on Sept. 23 we reported on an unusual case in which a court had ordered the Internal Revenue Service to pay a taxpayer $10,000 for the emotional distress occasioned by its overzealous collection techniques. Now San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has allowed a suit to go forward in which […]
Comments are closed.