Judge worries jury doesn’t understand legal malpractice case

LOS ANGELES -- A superior court judge told attorneys litigating a legal malpractice suit Tuesday he was worried technical aspects of the case were not being fully grasped by the jury.

The trial, which began last week and has been marked by several lawyers giving testimony, seeks to establish whether international law firm Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP breached its fiduciary duty to a disbarred British solicitor the firm represented in an invasion of privacy suit.

In a sidebar with attorneys from both sides, Judge Terry A. Green said he was concerned the technical complexities of the case were lost on the jury, and he didn't think they understood the issues that would be key to deciding it.

"To the casual observer it makes no sense," Green said, referring to the extended testimony the jury has heard so far, mostly technical legal explanations from attorneys who worked on the case of British solicitor Shahrokh Mireskandari. He originally brought the suit alleging Edwards Wildman Palmer and one of its attorneys, Dominique Shelton, overcharged him and misrepresented their expertise in a libel suit that shifted into an invasion of privacy case against a British tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail. Shahrokh Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer, BC517799 (filed Aug 9, 2013, L.A. Sup. Ct.).

Mireskandari was disbarred in Britain after the Daily Mail published a series of 2008 stories alleging he faked legal qualifications and hid criminal convictions while representing celebrity clients.

On Tuesday the jury heard testimony from Mireskandari's former attorney, Bonnie E. Eskenazi, a partner at Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP, which was retained to handle anti-SLAPP aspects of Mireskandari's case.

Dominique Shelton of of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP

The plaintiff's current attorney, Kathleen Bliss of Kathleen Bliss Law PLLC in Nevada, and defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP questioned Eskenazi on Tuesday.

Eskenazi said she was retained by Mireskandari around July 2012 to handle the matter of an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the Daily Mail but soon found herself mired in other intricacies involving preexisting cases against Mireskandari in his home country and the conflicting opinions held by other attorneys Mireskandari had previously retained.

While her work was complicated by the involvement of other attorneys, Eskenazi said, she had no reason to believe representatives of Edwards Wildman acted in bad faith.

"Did you have any reason to believe that Edwards Wildman was working against the case in any way?" Moscarino asked.

"They were clearly being collaborative and working with us every step of the way," Eskenazi said, referring to the actions of the firm around July 2012.

About the following November, Eskenazi said she received emails from Mireskandari she considered rude and unnecessary.

"Getting these nasty, unfounded emails from you is simply not acceptable," Eskenazi said in an emailed response to Mireskandari when he complained certain motions he considered important were not being filed on the timetable he would have liked.

Eskenazi explained her view in another email to Mireskandari, "One of the reasons there is so much time on this case is because you have so many different lawyers/law firms engaged -- and everyone has their own judgment."

"It really was too many cooks in the kitchen, that was my view," she testified.

Eskenazi also said it was Mireskandari's choice to retain multiple attorneys, and he should not have complained his consequent bills were so high, clarifying she was referring to both the case as a whole and the specific anti-SLAPP aspect.

One of Mireskandari's complaints against Edwards Wildman is they allegedly did not anticipate the Daily Mail would file an anti-SLAPP motions, which added considerably to the costs of his suit when the paper did so.

The case previously went before the 2nd District Court of Appeal, focusing on the issue of client-attorney privilege for in-house attorney communications within the firm. The appellate court ruled for Edwards Wildman.