"In Nevada, legal malpractice is premised upon an attorney-client relationship, a duty owed to the client by the attorney, breach of that duty, and the breach as proximate cause of the client's damages."
However, even without an express contract, "[i]t is axiomatic that an attorney who undertakes representation of an individual owes duties to that individual, even if the individual never assented to the representation. Otherwise, an attorney could never face liability for unauthorized representation."
Cox alleges that despite that fact that Marc Randazza "had no contract with Cox [and] had not committed to representation," he attempted to negotiate a case on her behalf, discouraged other attorneys from taking her case by representing that he was her attorney, and used information that he obtained during her initial case consultation against her after she declined his representation.
Randazza argues that Cox's allegations that there was no assent to representation dooms Cox's claim because there is no attorney-client relationship upon which to base a malpractice claim.
This argument ignores the allegations that Randazza actually represented Cox in various ways and did so without her authorization. Taking the allegations in Cox's counterclaim as true, even absent an express contract, Randazza's actions could subject him to liability for unauthorized legal representation. Moreover, Cox's allegation that Randazza used attorney-client-privileged information obtained during an initial-case consultation to harm Cox's reputation is sufficient to state a legal malpractice claim. Randazza's request to dismiss Cox's fourth claim for legal malpractice is denied."
Proposed Amended Counter Claim;
Oh and YES Marc Randazza DID Violate my First Amendment Rights. He shut down blogs, facebook sites, took my search engine ranking, took domain names and wiped out blogs and more to SUPPRESS my speech, the TRUTH speaks for itself.