Disbarred British lawyer testifies against Edwards Wildman Palmer

LOS ANGELES — A disbarred British solicitor testified in superior court Tuesday that when he questioned a bill, attorneys at Edwards Wildman LLP referred him to the firm’s general counsel who suggested he retain another law firm in his invasion of privacy case against a British newspaper.

Plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari, who lost his British bar license after the Daily Mail wrote stories about him, has accused Edwards Wildman of malpractice and is now suing them.

On the witness stand in a jury trial now in its third week, Mireskandari said he complained about being billed for 23 hours for the service of one specific claim. His then-attorney, Dominique Shelton, who is named as a defendant in the case, did not respond to his email, he said. Shahrokh Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer, BC517799 (filed Aug 9, 2013, L.A. Sup. Ct.)

The issue was instead addressed by Fred Bernstein, a senior partner at Edwards Wildman who referred Mireskandari to the firm’s general counsel, Jeffrey Swope, the plaintiff testified.

Defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP, representing Edwards Wildman Palmer, raised running objections throughout the testimony but with little success.

Moscarino cross-examined Mireskandari on issues ranging from a preexisting libel case against the Daily Mail to his opinions of his former counsel.

In one of many argumentative exchanges, Mireskandari consistently refused to answer Moscarino’s questions in simple yes or no fashion, electing to attempt to explain the context surrounding his actions.

“Yes or no sir, did you lose your appeal of the libel case in the UK?” Moscarino asked at one point.

Mireskandari launched into a long explanation of a biased solicitor-turned judge who had previously represented the Daily Mail.

Moscarino, clearly frustrated moved to strike everything but the affirmation that he had indeed lost the case.

“If it requires that I need to explain to the jury on the truth of the matter, then I will do that,” Mireskandari angrily exclaimed at one point.

Similar exchanges revolved around the issue of the plaintiff’s thoughts on his representation and a degree that he received from the American University of Hawaii, a non-ABA-accredited law school.

In his earlier direct testimony, Mireskandari called the referral to the firm’s general counsel “an aggressive course of action,” in an email. He testified to his belief that a firm maintaining hundreds of lawyers and thousands of clients could not possibly have its general counsel weigh in on each case that encountered billing disputes, meaning the firm was using Swope as a way of actively trying to get rid of him as a client.

Mireskandari also questioned why Swope, who was based in Boston, would be handling the case given he also had no expertise in privacy and media matters.

In a June 2012 email exchange with Bernstein, Mireskandari related the contents of several phone calls he said he had with Swope, “For the avoidance of doubt Mr. Swope attempted on several occasions during the call to persuade me to reconsider my position in retaining your firm and to suggest that an alternative firm may be more appropriate,” Mireskandari wrote in the email. “I cannot see any point in his communication with me, save to try to persuade me that I should retain different counsel.”

Mireskandari said the proposition he retain a different firm was ridiculous because he had to file a response to an anti-SLAPP motion within a very short period of time and no other firm would bind themselves to complete such a task on such short notice.

His main complaint against Shelton is she allegedly did not anticipate the newspaper filing an anti-SLAPP motion, and when it did, increased the amount of his estimated costs for the case by $60,000.

Mireskandari’s attorney, Becky S. James of James & Associates, also brought up the issue of the authorship of some of the emailed exchanges. Responding to her questions, Mireskandari said Swope had ghostwritten many of the emails originally supposed to have been written by Shelton.

In a brief exchange without the presence of the jury, Judge Terry A. Green addressed some outstanding issues involving what testimony and jury instruction would be a part of the case.

On the issue of bringing a witness to testify on the practices of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the governing body of Britain’s legal profession, which disbarred the plaintiff, Green said there would be no more testimony. The organization has so far been painted by the plaintiff as a corrupt organization in league with the Daily Mail and bent on ruining him.

“I will draw a bright line and say we aren’t going to call any witnesses from England regarding the SRA. They will stand on their own,” Green said.

Regarding a motion made by James to suppress additional evidence presented by the defense from Mireskandari’s previous attorneys about their experiences with him as a client, Green said, “I’m open to any kind of limiting instruction that you want.”

James said, “To bring in extraneous evidence about what has happened with prior attorneys is highly prejudicial.”

“You’ve effectively defined the battlefield,” Green said in response to James questioning the efficacy of Moscarino delving into her client’s past deeds, “It’s very hard for me to say they can’t go into the same areas,” the judge concluded.