In Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d 688, an attorney was found to have been "actively working to protect the insurance company who had hired him to represent their insured and persisting in manipulating his client against her own best interests." 9 When the judgment in the underlying lawsuit in Betts, supra, exceeded coverage by $ 350,000, instead of taking steps to protect his client from the excess verdict, the attorney discouraged the client from seeking independent counsel and encouraged her to file for bankruptcy. (154 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 696, 717.) The Betts court concluded: "This is not a case in which the question of breach turned on legal technicalities requiring the fine exercise of professional judgment. The issue was simply whether the attorney did or did not abandon his client's best interests in deference to the conflicting interest of the insurance company. The proof on that issue was clear in its inculpatory impact. It speaks for itself without the aid of expert opinion." (Id. at p. 716.)