McDaniel v. Gile
230 Cal. App. 3d 363 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's conditioning of legal services on the receipt of sexual favors from a client, or otherwise sexually harassing a client, may constitute outrageous conduct for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and may fall below the professional standard of care for a claim of legal malpractice.
Facts:
- Patricia Gile hired attorney James H. McDaniel to represent her in her marital dissolution proceeding.
- During the representation, McDaniel allegedly asked Gile intimate questions about her personal and sexual life.
- McDaniel allegedly made unwanted physical advances, including pinning Gile against a wall and kissing her, and made numerous sexually suggestive remarks.
- After Gile refused to have sexual relations with McDaniel, he allegedly began to abandon her case, failed to return phone calls, and provided substandard services.
- When Gile urgently needed a restraining order, McDaniel allegedly told her that if she had 'played the game the right way' (implying providing sexual favors), she would have been able to reach him immediately.
- McDaniel allegedly told Gile's friend that female clients were vulnerable and if one 'went to bed to get better service from him, so be it.'
- McDaniel incorrectly advised Gile that she had no community property interest in her ex-husband's retirement plan, causing her to lose her share.
- As a result of McDaniel's conduct, Gile suffered severe emotional distress, became fearful of being alone with men, and required psychological counseling.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff James H. McDaniel sued his former client, defendant Patricia Gile, in the trial court for unpaid legal fees.
- Gile filed a cross-complaint against McDaniel, alleging legal malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and other claims based on alleged sexual harassment.
- McDaniel filed a motion for summary adjudication, arguing that the alleged sexual advances could not legally form the basis for Gile's IIED or malpractice claims.
- The trial court granted McDaniel's motion for summary adjudication, effectively removing the sexual harassment allegations from the case.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial on the remaining limited issues, and the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of McDaniel on both his complaint and Gile's cross-complaint.
- Gile, as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's conduct of making sexual advances toward a client and withholding legal services when those advances are refused create a triable issue of material fact for causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and legal malpractice?
Opinions:
Majority - Grignon, J.
Yes. An attorney's conduct of sexually harassing a client and withholding legal services when sexual favors are not granted can create triable issues of fact for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and legal malpractice. The court reasoned that for intentional infliction of emotional distress, such conduct can be considered 'outrageous' due to the fiduciary relationship between an attorney and client, the attorney's position of power, and the client's particular vulnerability, especially during a marital dissolution. This is distinct from a claim for 'seduction,' which is barred by statute, because the harm arises from the coercive abuse of the professional relationship, not from consensual sexual relations. For legal malpractice, the court found that abandoning a client or providing substandard services because the client refuses sexual advances necessarily falls below the standard of care and skill required of members of the legal profession.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that an attorney's sexual harassment of a client is not merely an ethical violation but can form the basis for civil tort liability. It clarifies that the power imbalance inherent in the attorney-client relationship makes clients particularly vulnerable, and an attorney's exploitation of that vulnerability for sexual purposes constitutes outrageous conduct. The case sets a significant precedent by distinguishing this type of coercive behavior from simple 'seduction' claims, preventing attorneys from using anti-heart-balm statutes as a shield against liability for professional misconduct that causes severe emotional harm and tangible legal damage to a client.
