Malpractice suit reaches ‘outer limits’ of legal doctrine, judge says

LOS ANGELES -- A legal malpractice trial stretching into its fourth week is reaching "the outer limits" of many legal doctrines, said the judge who early on told attorneys he did not want to make new law in the matter.

"This has been the strangest case I think I've ever seen," Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green told attorneys for Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP and the plaintiff, a disbarred British solicitor who sued the international firm over its brief handling of his suit against a British tabloid for articles that led to the end of his legal career.

"We are exploring the outer limits of many legal doctrines in this case," Green said Tuesday after the end of evidence. Certain facts surrounding the funding of the litigation "explores the outer limits of collateral source," he said.

California's collateral source rule prohibits the admission of evidence in a civil lawsuit that the victim has already received compensation from a source other than the defendant from whom they are seeking damages.

Preparing jury instructions before closing arguments are made on Wednesday, Green again reiterated questions he has previously voiced about the case.

"It makes absolutely no economic sense," Green exclaimed, but seemed to accept the financing behind plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari's 11-year course of litigation was not a matter do be decided by him. Green did conclude: "Somebody is out a lot of money." Whether that is the plaintiff himself, his wife who is also a British solicitor, or another party was still unclear.

"I can't resolve these factual questions," Green said. He repeated that he intended to give an "unclean hands" instruction to the jury in reference to Mireskandari's multiple lawsuits against previous legal representatives and others over several years.

Defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP moved a second time for a directed verdict, which Green denied, noting breach of fiduciary duty, the ostensible heart of the case, had been compellingly argued.

"There is evidence that the defense placed their interests ahead of the client," Green said.

A seemingly frustrated Moscarino told Green, "We've now just rewritten the law in California." Moscarino argued the plaintiff's contention that named defendant Dominique Shelton had a financial incentive to represent her firm's interests over Mireskandari's interests would be used in all legal malpractice cases going forward, should it prevail.

This came after Moscarino finally abandoned petitioning the court to continue to entertain the issue of who was financing the litigation, which he considers inextricable from the other facts of the case.

Moscarino said he believes Paul Baxendale-Walker, another disbarred British solicitor and legal author and adult film actor, is the true financier of Mireskandari's litigation and acting on a long-held vendetta against the governing body of the British legal profession.

Moscarino further argued Mireskandari and his wife were involved in fraud and not truly damaged.

The relationship between Baxendale-Walker and the plaintiff's wife, Saeedeh Mirshahi, who owns a law firm with the entertainer's name on it, was examined at length during the trial, without great result.

"We have a plaintiff with an unbelievable thirst for litigation," Moscarino said, seemingly sharing Green's confusion that an apparently broke plaintiff could sustain such financially taxing litigation for over a decade. Mireskandarui testified he won back many thousands of dollars in fees paid to some of his past lawyers.

Mireskandari was disbarred in Britain after the Daily Mail ran a series of 2008 stories alleging he had fabricated legal qualifications and hidden criminal convictions. Shahrokh Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer, BC517799 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 9, 2013).

He alleged Edwards Wildman Palmer overcharged him and misrepresented its expertise when they handled his libel suit that eventually shifted into an invasion of privacy case against the Daily Mail.

Shortly before dismissing the jury for the day, Green allowed defense attorney Katherine Pratt Balatbat of Valle Makoff LLP, to read a brief portion of an interrogatory previously given by Mireskandari stating that moving his case to Virginia would have provided alternative legal options for combatting the Daily Mail's anti-SLAPP motion against him.

One of his major contentions is that Shelton, the lead attorney on his case, did not know that anti-SLAPP was a probable defense to a suit against a media outlet.

Shelton testified she did not automatically accept that placing a client's interests above her firm's was a requirement and described Mireskandari as a difficult client who was not paying his fees.

Asked on the witness stand Monday whether she agreed she had "an undivided duty of loyalty to any client," Shelton responded, "I have an undivided duty of loyalty to my clients, yes, I do."

When asked if she had an "undivided duty of loyalty" to Mireskandari specifically, Shelton responded, "I had a duty of loyalty to Mr. Mireskandari that I honored."

Shelton was pressed about whether it was an "undivided duty of loyalty " to Mireskandari. "You couldn't have loyalty to your firm as -- your firm's financial interest and then have a duty of loyalty to Mr. Mireskandari?" an attorney asked her.

Shelton responded, "You know, I disagree with that statement."

On Tuesday, Green was about to allow mor e information to be read about the difference between Virginia's and California's anti-SLAPP laws, but an argument made by plaintiff's attorney Jaya Gupta of James & Associates dissuaded him.

Gupta said the plaintiff would have called witnesses to explain the efficacy of a Virginia trial but Green had previously made the decision that, "Virginia was off the table."

"I don't think defense can have it both ways," Green then ruled.

Mireskandari then briefly testified again that the findings against him by Britain's Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, read into the record Monday, were indeed made by the agency, but denied they were true or that he agreed with them in any way.

He said the findings were immaterial, repeating a contention made throughout the trial, that the body was prejudiced against him.

Moscarino asked an unexplained question about Mireskandari's cardiac health, then rested.