Court Opinion

ID: 9759895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:32:05.146754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.951526
License: Public Domain

OPINION
BOURCIER, Justice.
This case comes before us on appeal from a final judgment entered in the Superior Court following a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Maria Del Rosario Vallinoto (Vallinoto), and against the defendant, Edmond A. DiSandro (DiSandro).
I
Facts and Travel
In May 1987, Vallinoto retained DiSandro to represent her in a divorce action brought *833against her by her former husband, Dennis Ledo (Ledo). Vallinoto, a citizen of Spain, married Ledo while living in Spain in 1977. They thereafter moved to this country. Ledo was an American citizen, but Vallinoto was not and was here on a so-called “green card.” The marriage produced one child, Christina, who was also an American citizen.
Vallinoto’s marriage was by no means a tranquil or a happy one. She testified that during the course of her marriage to Ledo she had been restricted to the marital home, verbally abused, badgered, and belittled. She claims to have suffered severe mental depression and stress, to have entertained suicidal thoughts, and to have been “isolated” and “victimized” by Ledo throughout the course of their ten-year marriage. It was Ledo, however, who commenced the fateful divorce proceedings, with Vallinoto later counterclaiming for divorce.
After having retained and then dismissing two other attorneys with whom she had become dissatisfied in the course of the divorce proceedings, Vallinoto retained DiSandro in May of 1987. DiSandro’s legal efforts on her behalf appear to have been both well performed and successful. DiSandro was able to obtain for her an increase in the weekly child support payments previously ordered for her daughter, Christina, from $15 to $30 per week to $150 to $200 per week. Moreover, at the time that her divorce became final on April 25,1989, Vallinoto was awarded custody of Christina, 60 percent of the marital assets, several priceless paintings and heirlooms, and attorney’s fees. Vallinoto, by her own account, acknowledged receiving excellent legal representation from DiSandro in her divorce proceedings as well as successful final results, all clearly evidenced in her final judgment of divorce. Unfortunately, however, DiSandro’s relationship with Vallinoto extended far beyond his legal representation of her.
In August of 1987, some three months after having been retained to represent Valli-noto in her divorce action, DiSandro and Vallinoto became involved in an intimate physical relationship. That relationship continued until Vallinoto’s last hearing on her divorce petition in December of 1988. DiSandro viewed the relationship as consensual. Vallinoto, on the other hand, alleged that she was compelled to perform sexual acts with DiSandro in part because of an alleged threat that DiSandro had once made to her, stating that if he discontinued his representation of her, she would be deported and lose custody of her child. She also alleged, in like vein, that DiSandro told her that he had undertaken to represent her only because she had been referred to him by a mutual friend and that good lawyers like himself usually did not take cases that other lawyers had started, which she interpreted to mean that if he withdrew as her counsel in her case, other good attorneys would not undertake to represent her. Vallinoto asserted that as a result of those implied threats, she felt compelled to comply with DiSandro’s sexual demands, fearing that he would terminate his representation of her and that she would not thereafter be able to engage another competent attorney.1 Over the course of their approximately eighteen-month relationship, Vallinoto estimated that she and DiSandro were actively intimate almost 200 times, all without her consent. She later testified at disciplinary board hearings that the 200 number was really a guess on her part. In any event, the occurrence rather than the number is the significant factor.
During the jury trial below, DiSandro’s law partner, Z. Hershel Smith (Smith), was called as a witness by Vallinoto to testify with regard to the nature of the relationship that existed between Vallinoto and DiSandro. Smith testified that contrary to Vallinoto’s *834view of her relationship with DiSandro, he considered Vallinoto to be DiSandro’s girlfriend. He recalled that at Christmas time, Vallinoto cheerfully came to DiSandro’s law office and gave gifts to the office personnel, including DiSandro. Vallinoto herself testified that in the course of the relationship she frequently sent different greeting cards to DiSandro, many of which ended with an expression of “love” obviously intending to convey that emotion to DiSandro. Among the many trial exhibits was a greeting card containing the phrase “you got me right where I want me.”
By the time Vallinoto’s divorce became final in early 1989, the affairs, both legal and nonlegal, between her and DiSandro had ended. She returned, however, to DiSandro some eight months later, seeking legal assistance on another matter in which she was being sued by her former husband, Ledo. She and DiSandro did not renew their sexual intimacy during that particular attorney-client relationship, and Vallinoto has never complained of DiSandro’s handling of that matter for her.
The record also reveals that Vallinoto’s extramarital interests, however, were not restricted to her attorney’s participation. She admitted that during her ongoing sexual relationship with DiSandro and prior to the time of concluding her divorce petition hearings and continuing on thereafter into late 1989, she was dating someone other than DiSan-dro. In the summer of 1989 she traveled to Hawaii with that other person and shared the same hotel room with him for some two weeks. Later, in early 1990, she then began dating a new and different man. It was while planning with this latest man to purchase a larger house in which to live together that she decided to tell him of her previous sexual relationship with DiSandro. She eventually married that man in December 1990. It was some three weeks later, in January 1991, that she decided, with the encouragement of her new husband, to commence her litigation seeking monetary damages from DiSandro.
in her civil action complaint filed in the Superior Court she asserted therein claims for legal malpractice against DiSandro and his law firm, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against DiSandro, deceit against DiSandro and the law firm, and negligence against the law firm.2 She sought compensatory as well as punitive damages. After trial five separate claims were submitted to the jury, and the jury returned a general verdict for Vallinoto, covering all claims, for $25,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. DiSandro appealed.
II
Legal Malpractice
In order to prevail on a negligence-based legal malpractice claim, Vallinoto was required to prove that she had retained the defendant-attorney to represent her in her divorce proceeding, that the attorney had been negligent, and that the attorney’s “‘negligence was the proximate cause of * * * her damages or loss.’ ” Scuncio Motors, Inc. v. Teverow, 635 A.2d 268 (R.I.1993) (per curiam). An integral part of any attorney-malpractice-negligence claim requires proof that actual damages resulted from the attorney’s alleged breach of the duty arising out of the attorney-client relationship. That duty includes in essential part providing competent representation to the client, including the utilization of competent legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and case preparation reasonably necessary both to protect and to advance the client’s interests. See, e.g., art. V, Rule 1.1 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.
In Suppressed v. Suppressed, 206 Ill.App.3d 918, 151 Ill.Dec. 830, 565 N.E.2d 101 (1990), a female client sued an attorney who had previously represented her in a divorce action. The client alleged a breach of fiduciary duty arising from the attorney’s alleged coercion and seduction of her, which resulted in her engaging in sexual acts with him. The client claimed that she had been forced to *835comply with the attorney’s requests for sexual intimacy because she had feared that to have refused would have jeopardized her case. After having complied with her attorney’s requests a few times, the client discharged him and retained new counsel to complete her divorce action.
Although in her complaint the client did not specifically label her cause of action “legal malpractice,” the Illinois court nonetheless interpreted her allegations as such. That court concluded, however, that the client had failed to demonstrate, on the evidence presented, proof of a breach of duty and damages. The court accordingly held that the client was not entitled to recovery. The client’s legal malpractice claim in that ease was rejected, in part, because the Illinois court refused to go as far as to hold that inherent in every attorney-client relationship was a duty to refrain from sexually intimate behavior. Instead, the court held there that “the breach of duty alleged in a legal malpractice action must be more clearly linked to the attorney’s legal representation.” 151 Ill.Dec. at 834, 565 N.E.2d at 105. Thus there could be no claim for legal malpractice as a result of sexual involvement between an attorney and a client unless “the attorney actually made his professional services contingent upon the sexual involvement or * * * his legal representation of the client was, in fact, adversely affected” by his sexual activities. Id. The court found that on the facts as alleged by the client, no evidence existed that the sexual acts were a quid pro quo for the legal services provided her.
The Suppressed court also found that the client failed to prove “damages stemming from a loss suffered in the client's underlying legal action or * * * that the client’s legal position was somehow compromised by the breach of duty alleged.” Id. 151 Ill.Dec. at 835, 565 N.E.2d at 106. The Illinois court reasoned that emotional damage, alone, was insufficient to sustain a legal malpractice claim because it “would be opening the door to any number of malpractice actions brought by clients who may have been less than satisfied with their legal representation but can point to no specific harm other than their own emotional distress.” Id. The court accordingly found that there was no cause of action proven for legal malpractice and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the client’s complaint. The court did, however, in the course of its opinion, raise the possibility that on the basis of the client’s allegations a claim could lie for battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In McDaniel v. Gile, 230 Cal.App.3d 363, 281 Cal.Rptr. 242 (1991), on the other hand, a legal malpractice claim was held sufficient to withstand summary judgment in circumstances that differed factually from Suppressed. In McDaniel, the attorney involved actually withheld legal services, gave substandard legal service to the client, and delayed rendering legal services whenever his requests for sexual favors went unanswered. As a result, the client in that ease ended up losing her half-interest in a pension plan and had to settle her divorce proceeding by herself, all to her disadvantage. In McDaniel, there was clear evidence that the sexual favors were requested as a quid pro quo for the legal services and that the client’s legal position in her divorce action actually suffered as a result of her refusal to comply with her attorney’s sexual requests. The McDaniel case facts, of course, are completely distinguishable from the facts in Suppressed, where the legal malpractice claim was rejected. They are also completely distinguishable from the facts before us in the instant ease concerning Vallinoto and DiSan-dro.
The case before us involves, unlike Suppressed or McDaniel, a negligence-based legal malpractice claim as opposed to a legal malpractice claim based on a breach of fiduciary duty. However, under either theory, plaintiffs claim for legal malpractice would fail. There is no relevant probative evidence in the trial record that suggests to us that the legal services rendered by DiSandro were made contingent on sexual involvement with Vallinoto. She clearly had the ability and the knowledge to discharge and leave DiSandro at any time if she was ever dissatisfied with his legal representation in her divorce case. She had earlier, prior to retaining DiSandro, discharged two previous attorneys with whom she had been dissatis*836fied. Moreover, according to her testimony, there were more than 200 incidents of sexual encounters between her and DiSandro, some taking place after romantic dinners at intimate restaurants and others during sleepovers at DiSandro’s house. The numerous greeting cards she sent to DiSandro over the many months of the relationship, all expressing her love and affection for him, seem to indicate that it was a two-way affair. Additionally, she returned to DiSandro for legal representation long after the incidents of the alleged forced sexual relations concerned in her civil action had terminated and at a time when she was dating at least two other men, one of whom she married just before filing her action against DiSandro. All those facts suggest to us that DiSandro’s legal representation was kept separate and apart from the personal relationship that he embarked upon with Vallinoto. Accordingly, even though we certainly cannot and do not condone or excuse DiSandro’s actions involving his extralegal relationship with his client, there is an absence of evidence in the record before us that would support Vallinoto’s contention that DiSandro’s legal services departed from the standard of due care required of DiSan-dro in his handling of her divorce case litigation by the attorney-client relationship. We note additionally that even if a factfinder were to find that the legal services by DiSan-dro were a quid pro quo for sexual favors, Vallinoto’s claim would still fail because of the complete absence of any competent and relevant probative evidence of damages that resulted to her legal position, or to her legal detriment personally, as a result of DiSan-dro’s inappropriate sexual activities. She testified that DiSandro did an “excellent” job in representing her in her divorce action. She in fact received more than she had ever anticipated at the conclusion of her divorce proceeding. She was awarded custody of her child, an increase in support payments, 60 percent of the marital assets and several priceless paintings and heirlooms, as well as her attorney’s fees. Her divorce action by all accounts, including hers, was certainly settled satisfactorily, and that result reflects the competency of DiSandro’s legal representation. The complete absence of any evidence of damages resulting to her from his legal efforts on her behalf prevents any recovery on a negligence-based legal malpractice claim such as the one Vallinoto asserts in her complaint.
Accordingly, we conclude that since Valli-noto failed to produce evidence of any damages resulting to her from the litigation in which she was represented by DiSandro in support of her claim for negligence-based legal malpractice, the trial justice erred in not granting DiSandro’s motion for a directed verdict on the malpractice count. A directed verdict should also have been granted on the negligence-based legal malpractice count asserted against the law firm (count 6). There was absolutely no evidence presented in support of that claim at trial that could prove that DiSandro, when committing the various sexual acts with Vallinoto, was then acting on behalf of the partnership and within the reasonable scope of the partnership business. See Uniform Partnership Act of 1914 § 13, 6 U.L.A. 444 (1995); Uniform Partnership Act of 1994 § 305, 6 U.L.A. 44 (1995); J.R. Kemper, Annotation, Vicarious Liability of Attorney for Tort of Partner in Law Firm, 70 A.L.R.3d 1298, 1301 (1976). Additionally, there was, again, no competent proof of any independent breach of duty owed to Vallinoto, and, as was discussed above, there was a total absence of any evidence of specific damages resulting to her out of the litigation. A civil malpractice claim is, in essence, a negligence claim. It requires a plaintiff to prove by the fair preponderance of the trial evidence not only the defendant’s duty of care, but also his or her breach thereof and the damages actually or proximately resulting therefrom to the plaintiff. Failure to prove all three of those required elements, acts as a matter of law, to bar relief or recovery.
As an appellate court, we are restricted when reviewing a trial record, to what that record discloses to us. In this case, the trial record clearly discloses that plaintiff sustained no loss or damage that she could proximately relate to DiSandro’s legal performance or to his law firm’s actions, in support of her count 5 and count 6 claims for malpractice based upon alleged negligence in the handling of her bitterly contested di*837vorce-custody case. It necessarily follows therefore that the jury’s verdict for damages on the count 5 and count 6 claims was simply contrary to the most elementary of negligence-tort law principles and not sustainable. See Lutz Engineering Co. v. Industrial Louvers, Inc., 585 A.2d 631, 635 (R.I.1991); Forte Brothers, Inc. v. National Amusements, Inc., 525 A.2d 1301, 1301-03 (R.I.1987). See also Mostoufi v. Presto Food Stores, Inc., 618 So.2d 1372, 1377 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); 1 Speiser, Krause, and Gans, The American Law of Torts § 1:11 (1983); 1 Stein on Personal Injury Damages, § 1:4 (2nd ed. 1991); 1 Minzer, Nates, Kimball, Axelrod, and Gold-stein, Damages in Tort Action § 1.01[2] (1994).
The dissent suggests that in reviewing the sufficiency of the trial record concerning plaintiffs count 5 and count 6 negligence-based malpractice claims, we should consider DiSandro’s later adjudication of having violated certain disciplinary and professional-conduct rules stemming from his extralegal sexual activities with the plaintiff.3 Although a violation of those rules could certainly be relevant in a claim for breach of fiduciary obligation, the plaintiff in this record and proceeding made no such claim. That fact stands out in the trial record, and is actually what served as the basis for the trial justice’s refusal to permit the plaintiffs proffered expert on fiduciary obligation, Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard of the Yale Law School faculty, from giving testimony on that subject. The trial justice, because of the plaintiffs pleadings, correctly noted that such proffered evidence on the plaintiffs count 5 negligence-based malpractice claim would “not be probative of issues in this case.” We agree with the trial justice’s precise assessment.
In view of that clear trial record, Vallinoto cannot hebetate the basic legal deficiency in her count 5 negligence malpractice claim by inverting it into a breach of fiduciary claim. The clear and unanimous judicial rule, as well as academic authority, is that mere violation of codes of professional responsibility and conduct do not automatically establish a private cause of action for damages sounding in negligence for breach of fiduciary obligation.
“All of the courts that have directly considered this question have held that it does not. See Martin v. Trevino, 578 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Civ.App.1978); Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen, 129 Ga.App. 134, 199 S.E.2d 260 (1973) (statute prohibiting solicitation); Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Elgin Coal, Inc., 358 F.Supp. 17 (E.D.Tenn.1972); Bush v. Morris, 123 Ga.App. 497, 181 S.E.2d 503 (1971) (statute prohibiting DA from having private practice); Lyddon v. Shaw, 56 Ill.App.3d 815, 14 Ill.Dec. 489, 372 N.E.2d 685 (1978); Gifford v. Harley, 62 A.D.2d 5, 404 N.Y.S.2d 405 (1978); Hill v. Willmott, 561 S.W.2d 331 (Ky.App.1978); Drago v. Buonagurio, 46 N.Y.2d 778, 413 N.Y.S.2d 910, 386 N.E.2d 821 (1978); Spencer v. Burglass, 337 So.2d 596 (La.App.1976); Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 109 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1973); Bickel v. Mackie, 447 F.Supp. 1376 (N.D.Iowa 1978); Nelson v. Miller, 227 Kan. 271, 607 P.2d 438 (1980); Young v. Hecht, 3 Kan.App.2d 510, 597 P.2d 682 (1979); Friedman v. Dozorc, 83 Mich.App. 429, 268 N.W.2d 673 (1978); Brody v. Ruby, 267 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 1978). It also appears that most legal writers on this subject approve the rule as stated by these courts.
“The principal reasons for this rule, as stated in the opinions by these courts, are the following:
(a) The statute or Code of Professional Responsibility was not intended to create a private cause of action. On the contrary, the sole intended remedy for a violation of such a statute or code is the imposition of discipline by disbarment, suspension or reprimand of the offending attorney. See, e.g., Martin v. Trevino, supra, at 770; Bickel v. Mackie, supra, at 1383; Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Elgin Coal, Inc., supra, at 22; Hill v. Willmott, supra, at 333-34, and Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra, 109 Cal.Rptr. at 271-72. See also Brody v. Ruby, supra, at 907-08; *838Spencer v. Burglass, supra, at 600-01, and Tingle v. Arnold, Cate & Allen, supra, 199 S.E.2d at 263.” Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. v. Roloff, 291 Or. 318, 630 P.2d 840, 847-48 (1981). See also Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646 (1992).
Our Rules of Professional Conduct, art.V, likewise state in the preamble:
“Violation of a Rule should not give rise to a cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability.”
Ill
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
We likewise conclude that the trial justice erred in not granting DiSandro’s motion for a directed verdict on Vallinoto’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (count 2). In order to prevail on that claim, Vallinoto was required to prove extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly resulted in' causing her severe emotional distress. See Reilly v. United States, 547 A.2d 894 (R.I.1988). In Rhode Island, a plaintiff must prove physical symp-tomatology resulting from the alleged improper conduct. Id. at 898.
In McDaniel, supra., the court held that the client-plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress avoided summary judgment because in that case the plaintiff had not only proven that her attorney’s sexual harassment was based on outrageous conduct but, in addition, had presented evidence of actual damages resulting to her therefrom. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress were also suggested by that court as being permissible upon the specific facts present in Suppressed, supra., and In re Marriage of Kantar, 220 Ill.App.3d 323, 163 Ill.Dec. 55, 581 N.E.2d 6 (1991). Although such a claim could potentiaUy exist in this case, Vallinoto for whatever reason was either unable, or neglected, to produce at trial any admissible competent medical evidence showing objective physical manifestation of her aUeged psychic injuries that proximately resulted to her from DiSandro’s actions. Her social worker’s testimony, as wiU later be discussed, was inherently insufficient by reason of its lack of medical-expert competence and qualification to legaHy establish the necessary causal relationship for any of Vallinoto’s complaints of psychic injury and physical His aHegedly resulting from DiSandro’s actions. Absent that necessary evidence, her claim became vulnerable to a directed verdict.
The record reflects that Vallinoto did testify that she experienced shame, headaches, fear, terror, crying, nightmares, and flashbacks, aU of which she personaHy attributed to DiSandro’s sexual conduct. However, the record additionaHy discloses that she had experienced most of those same ailments during her ten-year marriage to Ledo. She also testified that after her divorce case ended, she suffered from shingles. Those subjective declarations alone, without any competent supporting medical evidence tending to prove that any of her aUeged physical His were proximately caused by DiSandro’s conduct and were not simply the aftermath of her recently concluded tumultuous marriage to Ledo, were insufficient to withstand the motion for a directed verdict. See Parrillo v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 518 A.2d 354, 356 (R.I.1986). Although Vallinoto was competent to testify that she suffered psychic problems and aHegedly experienced physical symptomatology therefrom, she was, however, as was her social worker, not qualified to testify that those specificaHy aUeged psychic and physical iHs were proximately caused by DiSandro’s actions.4 The origin and the causal connection of those psychic and physical complaints to her affair with DiSandro required expert medical opinion. See, e.g., *839Marshall v. Tomaselli, 118 R.I.190, 372 A.2d 1280 (1977). See also Maietta v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 749 F.Supp. 1344 (D.N.J.1990), aff'd without opinion, 932 F.2d 960 (3rd Cir.1991); Collette v. Collette, 177 Conn. 465, 418 A.2d 891 (1979); Woods v. Brumlop, 71 N.M. 221, 377 P.2d 520 (1962); Matchen v. McGahey, 455 P.2d 52 (Okla.1969). Had there been any competent medical evidence to establish the required causal connection between Vallinoto’s alleged shingles and DiSandro’s conduct, we would not hesitate to uphold the trial justice’s submission of the intentional infliction of emotional distress count to the jury. However, the absence of such evidence was fatal to Vallino-to’s claim, and the trial justice erred in not granting DiSandro’s motion for a directed verdict on the intentional infliction of emotional distress count.
Vallinoto in her appeal appears to have commingled and thus confused her count 2 (intentional infliction of severe mental distress) and her count 5 (negligence-malpractice) claims. She appears to overlook the legal distinction and proof requirements that exist between her negligence claim and her intentional infliction of severe mental distress claim, often referred to as “the tort of outrage.” 5 A careful reading of her complaint reveals that what she actually complained about was DiSandro’s unconsented sexual encounters with her as being the cause of the emotional injuries she alleged. Her complaint centered itself upon DiSandro’s alleged deliberate and intentional sexual misconduct.
“Where mental injury is the sole complaint, recovery for direct damages may be aEowed if the jurisdiction recognizes a tort for infliction of mental distress. Such an action, however, is not for legal malpractice but for a wrong intended to inflict emotional injuries. Similarly, conduct, which is not negligent, such as sexual assault, is governed by ordinary tort rules.” 2 Mullen & Smith, Legal Malpractice, § 19.11 at 612 (4th ed. 1996). (Emphasis added.)
Vallinoto apparently overlooks the fact that while she did aEege in a separate complaint count (count 2) the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in which she sought damages for the sexual assaults perpetrated upon her by the defendant,6 we require for recovery, however, along with the vast majority of judicial authority, that psychic as weü as physical injury claims must be supported by competent expert medical opinion regarding origin, existence, and causation. See, e.g., Ondis v. Pion, 497 A.2d 13, 17 (R.I.1985). In the trial record facts before us the plaintiff faded to produce any legaEy admissible competent medical evidence to support her self-serving uncorroborated statements that she sustained “nightmares,” “anxiety,” “headaches,” “stomach aches,” “nausea,” and “flashbacks” as the proximate result of her sexual encounters with the defendant. MedicaEy unsupported claims for those very same complaints have been consistently rejected by the vast majority of courts in this country. See, e.g., Gagne v. Northwestern National Insurance Co., 881 F.2d 309 (6th Cir.1989); J.B. v. Bohonovsky, 835 F.Supp. 796 (D.N.J.1993); Butler v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 690 F.Supp. 424 (D.Md.1987); Fitch v. Voit, 624 So.2d 542 (Ala.1993); Odegard v. Finne, 500 N.W.2d 140 (Minn.App.1993); Hendrix v. Wainwright Industries, 755 S.W.2d 411 (Mo.App.1988); Ruple v. Brooks, 352 N.W.2d 652 (S.D.1984); Garvey v. Buhler, 146 Wis.2d 281, 430 N.W.2d 616 (App.1988).
It is interesting to note that the case record reveals that Vallinoto testified at deposition proceedings on January 10, 1992, that she had in fact been examined by at least three competent medical doctors and other personnel regarding her aEeged emotional-psychic complaints, none of whom were caEed by her to testify. In fact, the first attorney that she had retained to sue DiSan-dro referred her to one of those physicians for an evaluation of her complaints. That attorney was given a report of the doctor’s *840pretrial medical evaluation. However, as noted, none of the doctors were called to testify in support of Vallinoto’s complaints, and no medical affidavits from them were ever offered at trial in support of her count 2 claim.
IV
Social Worker’s Testimony
DiSandro has also challenged in this appeal the admissibility of the testimony of Vallinoto’s social worker as it pertained to Vallinoto’s count 2 claim for damages. The social worker testified that Vallinoto was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition about which DiSandro argues that the social worker was not qualified to give expert opinion testimony. In State v. Willis, 256 Kan. 837, 888 P.2d 839 (1995), the Kansas court held that a social worker, while eminently qualified as such, was not qualified to “diagnose medical and psychiatric conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder.” Id. 888 P.2d at 845. In Ouellette v. Carde, 612 A.2d 687 (R.I.1992), we there held that a social worker could testify about psychotherapy if qualified, but could not give expert medical opinion. The social worker in Ouel-lette had been closely supervised by a physician and had worked together with him in such a manner that the social worker’s therapy was a part of the physician’s work. The implicit holding of Ouellette is that, absent the close working relationship between the social worker in that case and the physician, and the physician’s supervision involved therein, the social worker would not have been able to testify concerning the psychotherapy sessions in such detail as he was permitted to do so in that case. We note, however, that the social worker in Ouellette, despite having been given generous testimonial leeway, was still not permitted to give a final medical diagnosis or an expert medical opinion. See Willis, 888 P.2d at 845. In the case before us, Vallinoto’s social worker did not work with assistance from, or under the supervision of, any physician when she counseled Vallinoto. Thus although she may arguably have been qualified to relate the facts concerning the psychotherapy session itself, she certainly was not qualified to expand upon those facts and to give an expert medical opinion on, and a diagnosis of, post-traumatic stress disorder. The trial justice herself properly recognized the social worker’s inherent medical-expert-witness-qualification deficiency. The trial justice stated that the social worker “was not qualified to testify.” However, the trial justice thereafter nonetheless erroneously permitted the social worker to give medical expert opinion testimony despite her earlier reluctance to recognize the witness’s qualification to do so.
In any trial after the remand, if the social worker is then able to present sufficient qualification enabling her to give expert medical opinion, she should, it would appear, then be able to testify in regard to the hearsay statements made to her by Vallinoto for the purpose of obtaining psychological treatment and diagnosis. In re Jean Marie W., 559 A.2d 625 (R.I.1989). Such testimony by a registered and qualified independent clinical social worker would be admissible pursuant to Rule 803(4) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Thus, Vallinoto’s social worker might very well be able to testify about the hearsay statements made to her by Vallinoto if those statements were given for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment and not given for the purpose of preparing for litigation or for providing testimony at trial.
We also note for purposes of guidance during any new trial after remand that the challenged statements, which described the sexual abuse Vallinoto allegedly suffered at. the hands of DiSandro, would not be deemed inadmissible simply on the basis that they tended to assign fault, as asserted in this appeal by DiSandro. Those statements were not made to a physician examining a patient for physical evidence of a crime. See State v. Lima, 546 A.2d 770 (R.I.1988); State v. Pina, 455 A.2d 313 (R.I.1983). In Pina and Lima we held that statements that assign fault and that are made to a medical doctor searching for physical evidence of sexual abuse are inadmissible. However, Valli-noto was being treated for psychological ailments, not physical ones, and the statements made by her to her social worker regarding her sexual activity with DiSandro were di*841reetly relevant to the diagnosis of her mental state and the treatment that she was receiving for her alleged mental anguish and would be admissible. In re Jean Marie W., 559 A.2d at 630. Unlike the situation in Lima and Pina, the statements of the child victim in Jean Marie were introduced “to establish that sexual abuse had actually occurred but did not act to fix fault * * Id.
We note that the dissent makes reference to the Restatement (Second) Torts § 46 (1965) and several judicial holdings in support of its position that any lay person plaintiff may allege and sue for physical or mental claims of injury and by their own lay opinion testimony, unsupported by any competent medical testimony or evidence, establish origin, existence, and proximate causation thereof. That contended authority is clearly distinguishable on the facts in this case. The several cited supporting judicial holdings concerned cases that primarily involved questions of pleading wherein the actions had been dismissed while in the pleading stage and were later reversed on appeal and remanded for trial in light of the very liberal rule permitting an action to overcome dismissal motions at the pleading stage if it appears reasonably probable that the plaintiff, within the framework of the complaint, might be able at trial to produce evidence that might eventually support the complaint’s claim. Bragg v. Warwick Shoppers World, Inc., 102 R.I. 8, 227 A.2d 582 (1967). That is not what has been presented to us in this appeal. In this case the record clearly reveals that the plaintiff had her full day in court and had full opportunity to present any medical supporting evidence that she was capable of producing to prove her count 2 alleged mental sufferings. Her exiguous attempt to do so, however, was solely by means of the testimony of her social worker psychotherapist who, although found not qualified by the trial justice to proffer medical opinion in regard to cause or causation of the plaintiffs alleged headaches and other complaints of alleged ills, was nonetheless permitted to testify in regard to cause and causation. The trial justice prophetically noted, prior to permitting the social worker psychotherapist to give the limited but prejudicial testimony regarding the plaintiffs complaints, “I’ll probably regret it. She was not qualified to testify, but I’ll let her, and the jury can consider it for whatever it’s worth.” No reported case law condones that nature of admissibility.
“As a proposition, the recovery of consequential damages for mental or indirect physical injuries should comport with the jurisdictional rules applicable to ordinary tort actions. Thus, if a cognizable wrong, proximate causation and actual damages all exist, recovery should be allowed. Because claims for emotional or some physical injuries often are uncertain or speculative, attempts to recover for such injuries typically fail unless the plaintiff produces persuasive supporting evidence.” 2 Mailen & Smith, Legal Malpractice, § 19.11 at 616.
The plaintiffs count 2 claim for intentional infliction of severe mental distress fails because it was founded on the social worker psychotherapist’s testimony. For that basic reason, the jury’s verdict cannot withstand judicial muster and must be set aside.
“We are not required here to determine whether King David’s conduct reached the level of ‘outrageousness’ that would support recovery of money damages under section 46 [Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965)], because of a glaring failure in the chain of proof required to establish this claim. The Ka-zatskys presented no expert testimony, indeed no evidence at all except their own unsubstantiated averments, concerning their alleged injuries. To permit recovery on the basis of such a questionable showing would necessitate a radical departure from settled principles of Pennsylvania tort doctrine.
« * * #
“It is basic to tort law that an injury is an element to be proven. Given the advanced state of medical science, it is unwise and unnecessary to permit recovery to be predicated on an inference based on the defendant’s ‘outrageousness’ without expert medical confirmation that the plaintiff actually suffered *842the claimed distress. Moreover, the requirement of some objective proof of severe emotional distress will not present an unsurmountable obstacle to recovery. Those truly damaged should have little difficulty in procuring reliable testimony as to the nature and extent of their injuries. We therefore conclude that if section 46 of the Restatement is to be accepted in this Commonwealth, at the very least, existence of the alleged emotional distress must be supported by competent medical evidence.” Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc., 515 Pa. 183, 527 A.2d 988, 992, 995 (1987).
We too find ourselves reluctant to adopt the position espoused by the plaintiff as it pertains to her count 2 claim. Such would indeed constitute “radical departure” from long-settled and universal elementary tort principles. Such radical action in any event is totally unnecessary because the plaintiff at retrial will be permitted to pursue her requests for compensatory as well as punitive damages and to recover all to which she can prove she is legally entitled in her remaining viable causes of action.
V
DiSandro’s Threatening Conduct
DiSandro asserts that the admission at trial of evidence relating to threats he allegedly made to Vallinoto’s former husband and to her former husband’s attorney was inadmissible. We agree. Pursuant to Rule 404 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, character evidence is inadmissible to show that a person acted in conformity therewith. Moreover, if those acts were not admitted to show conformity therewith but were instead admitted to show a basis for Vallinoto’s fear of DiSandro, that evidence would still be inadmissible. Those acts were not sufficiently similar to the acts alleged against DiSan-dro by Vallinoto to be relevant to, or at all probative of, the coercion allegedly directed to and felt by Vallinoto. Even assuming that DiSandro had acted aggressively toward Val-linoto’s former husband and his attorney, that alleged aggression was not probative of the fact that DiSandro had acted aggressively toward Vallinoto or that Vallinoto had any reason to fear that such aggression would ever be directed toward her. In fact, DiSan-dro’s alleged threats could more plausibly be interpreted to have been for the purpose of defending and protecting Vallinoto. We not only view that evidence as being improper character evidence but also believe that its probative value, if relevant at all, was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice resulting to DiSandro and should not have been admitted, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, we find that admission of that evidence was error.
VI
New Trial
Because the jury returned a general verdict that awarded Vallinoto both compensatory and punitive damages, we are unable to determine therefrom the quantum of the impact that the error infected legal malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts, as well as the other trial errors, had in the actual computation and composition of the total award. The trial justice submitted all counts in the complaint to the jury in such form that only a general verdict could be returned. No special findings were requested by the parties. Consequently, it is impossible for us to determine upon which counts the jurors relied in returning their verdict in respect to liability and damages. Since certain counts should not have been submitted to the jury for the reasons heretofore stated, the general verdict is tainted. We cannot say what portion of the general total verdict reflects a finding and an award stemming from an issue on which a directed verdict should have been returned. In accordance with our holding in Reynolds v. Missler, 80 R.I. 59, 90 A.2d 779 (1952), we are constrained to order a new trial, despite our being satisfied that sufficient evidence existed to support submission of the claims in counts 1,4, and 9 to the jury. Failure to do so would result in our permitting the plaintiff to recover multiple recoveries for defendant’s sexual misconduct that appears to be the sole basis for her multiple claims. “[D]uplicature recovery for the same underlying behavior is prohibited.” Borden *843v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 935 F.2d 370, 383 (1st Cir.1991)(citing Diversified Graphics, Ltd. v. Groves, 868 F.2d 293, 295 (8th Cir.1989)). The plaintiffs “recovery on the intentional infliction claim [that we have reversed] barred any incremental award of damages on the fraud claim.” Id.
In addition, we note that the jury verdict questionnaire reports a general award for compensatory as well as punitive damages for all five of plaintifPs claims. Two of those five claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud, are the identical claims noted by Judge Selya in Borden. On the uncontroverted facts contained in the jury’s general verdict, the plaintiff here was in fact awarded duplicative as well as incremental damages for the same underlying conduct of defendant, namely, the sexual assaults and the deceit employed in accomplishing those sexual assaults. Clearly the law as recognized in Borden prohibits that recovery. See also DeCosta v. Viacom International, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 807 (D.R.I.1991).
“a plaintiff may not get additional bites of the apple by demanding multiple forms of relief for the same injury or by cloaking a single claim in a variety of legal theories.” Id. at 812.
In this case, it is legally impossible to reasonably measure or determine the propriety of the jury’s bite, because only one fact remains clear, and that is, that all five of the plain-tifPs claims were swallowed up in that one bite, leaving to absolute conjecture how much or what portion of the total general verdict award was attributable to any particular one of the five claims considered by the jury.
Because we are ordering a new trial, we need not address DiSandro’s other and various claims of error.
VII
Conclusion
Having disposed of the issues essential to the resolution of DiSandro’s appeal, we deem it necessary to comment upon the record before us. It is a record that reflects negatively upon DiSandro’s conduct during the course of his lawyer-client representation of Vallinoto. Such conduct, in our opinion, was reprehensible and not in keeping with the professional conduct demanded of attorneys licensed to practice law in our state courts. Nothing stated in our opinion today, which is based solely upon long-settled general principles of law, should be construed in any manner to imply that we condone such sexual behavior as was visited upon DiSandro’s client during the time when he was representing her and her interests in a most delicate and traumatic divorce action. The bar is cautioned to maintain, in its client relationships, such circumspect conduct that in no instance could cause the public to question the posture of the lawyer in his or her professional role as an advocate. Any appearance of assignation should never be suspect.
We notwithstanding sustain DiSandro’s appeal and vacate the final judgment of the Superior Court. The papers of this case are remanded to that court for a new trial and further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

. The plaintiff has attempted to portray herself in this appeal as a helpless, penniless native of Spain, alone in this country without family or friends and limited in English speaking ability. The trial record discloses otherwise. She had attended college in Spain for three years, majoring in psychology, had married in her third year of college, lived in this country for some ten years, learned to speak English, tested for and obtained a state license to sell real estate, and was employed by a local realtor, and after a bitter and tumultuous ten-year marriage, she had filed for divorce. Her parents readily made money available to her in order to engage three different attorneys and at one point deposited $10,000 in a Rhode Island bank account which funds were available to her during her divorce litigation.

. Vallinoto’s complaint also asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but Val-linoto withdrew that count at trial.

. In re DiSandro, 680 A.2d 73 (R.I.1996). That opinion calling for public censure was filed on July 29, 1996, more than five years after Vallino-to had filed her civil action against DiSandro.

. The fact that she experienced some of the same symptoms during her first marriage is relevant because no medical evidence was presented at trial that established that Vallinoto’s complaints were proximately caused by her relationship with DiSandro and not by her turbulent marriage to Ledo. Cf. Porrillo v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 518 A.2d 354, 356 (R.I.1986) (medical evidence must “exclude other unrelated potential causes of plaintiff’s * * * injury”).

. For an instructive discussion of the origin and nature of that tort, see Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, 515 Pa. 183, 527 A.2d 988, 993-95 (1987), and Rigazio v. Archdiocese of Louisville, 853 S.W.2d 295, 298-99 (Ky.Ct.App.1993).

. We accept as fact that the admitted sexual encounters constituted unconsented batteries because of the jury’s findings.