Edwards Wildman counsel cross-examines plaintiff’s lawyer wife

LOS ANGELES -- The attorney wife of a disbarred British solicitor said her husband was a "brilliant legal mind" during her testimony Monday in the trial of a malpractice case he brought against Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, alleging the international law firm botched his libel and invasion of privacy suit against a British tabloid.

The comments from Saeedeh Mirshahi, wife of disbarred solicitor Shahrokh Mireskandari, came in response to cross-examination regarding how her then-fiancé would be able to repay loans she facilitated to fund his various lawsuits.

Defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP asked Mirshahi, "When you entered into this agreement, you did an investigation into Mireskandari's financial situation?

"No, I know my husband and what he is capable of," Mirshahi replied. "I know how he got there. I know everything he had and what an incredible legal and business mind he was."

"You didn't perform any investigation to determine if all the funding you were going to facilitate could ever be repaid?" Moscarino asked.

Mirshahi responded that she had no doubt her husband could repay the debt.

Dominique R. Shelton of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP

Moscarino then asked, "And that's because you believe he is brilliant?"

"No, I know he is brilliant. I know you may not think so, but he is," Mirshahi said.

The lawsuit, being heard by a jury before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green, was filed onMireskandari's behalf by Becky S. James of James & Associates.

The plaintiff alleges Edwards Wildman Palmer overcharged him and misrepresented its expertise when it represented him in a suit against the Daily Mail. Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer, BC517799 (filed Aug 9, 2013, L.A. Sup. Ct.).

Mireskandari hired Edwards Wildman after the Daily Mail published a series of strongly worded articles starting in 2008 calling him, "a crooked lawyer" claiming, "He faked his legal qualification," and "hid his criminal convictions while representing celebrity clients."

Claiming victory over Mireskandari, the Daily Mail reported that the solicitor and attorney was disbarred in the United Kingdom after the tabloid published the articles.

When Mireskandari hired Edwards Wildman to pursue damages the relationship quickly turned sour when Mireskandari accused the firm of having a, "Jekyll and Hyde," flip-flopping evaluation of their chances of victory and failed to warn him the newspaper 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 attorney-client privilege for in-house attorney communications within the firm. The appellate court ruled for the firm.

Throughout Mirshahi's testimony, Green was asked to read instructions directing the jury that whenever a Daily Mail article was quoted it should not be taken as fact and that the only purpose of quoting the article was to simply establish the fact that certain statements were made.