Edwards Wildman trial begins with a strange twist

LOS ANGELES -- A superior court jury heard opening statements and witness testimony Wednesday aimed at determining the validity of the business practices of international law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, which is being sued by a former client for alleged malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

A former attorney and onetime employee of Edwards Wildman Palmer, Erin (Pfaff) Fagerlind, repeatedly said from the witness stand she did not recall the specific practices of her employer at the time, when questioned by plaintiff's attorney Kathleen Bliss of Kathleen Bliss Law.

"When you ask me outright, I don't remember any of this," Fagerlind exclaimed at one point, apparently becoming annoyed that Bliss continued to ask about company practices from around 2011, when Fagerlind worked at the firm.

"I'm asking you questions, so the jury can determine the facts from your statements," Bliss responded.

The pair contentiously went back and forth over minute issues in which Bliss attempted to ascertain Fagerlind's involvement in everything from billing disputes to anti-SLAPP motions.

The plaintiff, Shahrokh Mireskandari, originally brought the suit alleging Edwards Wildman Palmer overcharged him and misrepresented its expertise when the firm represented him in an invasion of privacy suit against a British newspaper, the Daily Mail.

Mireskandari was kicked out of the legal profession in Britain after the well-known tabloid published a series of 2008 stories alleging he falsified legal qualifications and hid criminal convictions while representing celebrity clients.

One of Edwards Wildman Palmer's attorneys, Dominique Shelton, is also named as a defendant.

The client-law firm relationship was short and strained. Mireskandari alleges the firm and Shelton grossly underestimated the costs of the case and failed to warn him the paper would file an anti-SLAPP motion, which it did.

The case previously went before the 2nd District Court of Appeal centering around the issue of client-attorney privilege for in-house attorney communications within the firm. The appellate court ruled for the firm. Shahrokh Mireskandari vs. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, BC517799 (filed Aug 9, 2013 L.A. Sup. Ct.).

Defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP questioned British barrister Peter Herbert, who also serves as deputy chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority in London and vice-chair of the Society of Black Lawyers.

Herbert mostly answered general questions surrounding the legal profession in the United Kingdom and his general impression of the Daily Mail and its practices.

In a strange turn, the defense sent Herbert home early, apparently ignoring that plaintiffs intended to cross-examine him later in the day.

"I'm sorry but these things were served on Mother's Day," exclaimed Moscarino at one point.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green requested the attorneys instead read the jurors Shelton's deposition, even though Shelton was sitting in the courtroom..

An argument then began over whether the defense had or hadn't responded to a late-night brief that the plaintiff's attorneys planned to read-in a deposition they had previously taken from Shelton on Nov. 6, 2013.

Bliss took the stand to play the part of Shelton, discussing a conversation she had with the plaintiff regarding the beginning of their payment disputes.