A recent court decision highlights a malpractice lawsuit where a former client accused her attorney of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Shalome Kaushansky filed the complaint against Stonecroft Attorneys, APC, and Michael Akhidenor in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on June 24, 2016. The case was brought to light when the Court of Appeal of California issued its ruling on March 14, 2025.
The origins of this legal battle trace back to 2014 when Kaushansky hired Stonecroft to represent her in a dispute with her landlord over numerous habitability issues, including mold from water leaks, electrical fires, and harassment by the landlord's staff. Despite being informed about these issues and receiving evidence from Kaushansky, Stonecroft allegedly failed to take adequate legal action. They did not advance discovery or attend hearings and ultimately persuaded Kaushansky to sign a substitution of attorney form just weeks before trial. Left without representation, she settled for $2,500—a fraction of what she believed her case was worth.
Kaushansky’s malpractice suit claimed professional negligence under Business and Professions Code section 17200. During the bench trial held in March and April 2021, evidence was presented that Stonecroft had not only failed to plead all applicable causes but also neglected essential discovery processes. The court found that these failures were significant breaches that affected the potential outcome of her original case against the landlord.
The court awarded Kaushansky $116,734.29 in damages: $91,734.29 for professional negligence (which was later reversed on appeal due to insufficient proof of collectibility) and $25,000 for breach of fiduciary duty. However, it declined punitive damages as there was no clear evidence that Stonecroft acted with malice or fraud.
Stonecroft challenged this judgment on appeal but did not contest the factual findings regarding their misconduct; instead, they argued that Kaushansky failed to prove she could have collected more than $2,500 from her landlord if properly represented. The appellate court agreed with Stonecroft regarding collectibility but upheld the award for breach of fiduciary duty due to emotional distress caused by their abrupt withdrawal from representation.
Representing Kaushansky were attorneys from Medvei Law Group led by Sebastian M. Medvei while Edward A. Hoffman represented Stonecroft Attorneys in their appeal efforts before Judge Theresa M. Traber under Case ID BC624944.