Jury given Edwards Wildman Palmer malpractice case

LOS ANGELES -- Even if her client were "a pain in the neck" that doesn't change the facts of his malpractice lawsuit against international firm Edwards Wildman Palmer, the plaintiff's attorney told a jury Thursday at the close of a four-week trial.

Conversely, defense attorney John M. Moscarino of Valle Makoff LLP told the superior court panel, "The strongest solvents in the world can't clean this man's hands."

Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green instructed the jury Wednesday that as they consider whether the law firm breached its fiduciary duty to the disbarred British solicitor who retained them to sue a British newspaper, the jurors should also decide whether the plaintiff had "unclean hands" in bringing the suit.

The 11 years of litigation conducted by plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari, much of it lawsuits against his former attorneys, was a focus of the defense evidence throughout the trial and of Moscarino's closing.

But Becky S. James of James & Associates in her rebuttal characterized Moscarino's final arguments as immaterial mudslinging against her client and said questions about how he financed his lawsuits was immaterial.

"Maybe he's a pain in the neck," James said, adding even if that were true, a plaintiff's disposition didn't change the facts of the case.

Mireskandari accused Edwards Wildman Palmer and one of its attorneys, Dominique Shelton, of misrepresenting their expertise and overcharging him. In particular, he said Shelton did not tell him an anti-SLAPP motion was a probable defense for a newspaper accused of libel or invasion of privacy, and she raised his estimated charges by thousands of dollars once that motion was filed.hahrokh Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer, BC517799 (Filed Aug 9, 2013, L.A. Sup. Ct.).

Shelton acknowledged on the witness stand she did not consider it likely that Britain's Daily Mail was likely to file the motion when sued over 2008 articles about Mireskandari's misrepresentation of his legal qualifications and hidden criminal convictions. The articles led to his disbarment in Britain.

Moscarino finished his arguments by reviewing his theory that Mireskandari and his wife, also a British solicitor, were not truly damaged during their years of litigation in this and previous cases because they weren't truly paying the costs.

Earlier in the case, Green told Moscarino, "I don't think you can prove it," regarding his allegations about the underlying funding.

Moscarino reviewed for the jury that Mireskandari's wife testified the wealth management and law firm she owned, under the name of disbarred solicitor, legal author and adult film actor Paul Baxendale-Walker, was a shell to finance her husband's lawsuits.

The jury retired just before 2 p.m. after Green and the parties agreed to make one juror, who had been noticed sleeping during the trial, an alternate. She remained in the hallway outside the courtroom.