Sarah Chong v. Howard Lee dba Wilshire Law Office
Published: Jun. 7, 2001 | Result Date: Apr. 2, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC204567 – $103,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Jeffrey A. Lipow
(Lipow & Harris)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Carl K. Osborne
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff is a Korean immigrant who married an American. When the plaintiffÆs daughter was 3 years old, she and her husband separated. The husband evicted the plaintiff from the house and took the child to the Riverside area. Upon establishing herself, the plaintiff engaged in a lengthy effort to obtain increased visitation or custody of her daughter. The plaintiff had different lawyers over the years while the case was transferred back and forth between Northern and Southern California. In 1997, after the case had been returned to Southern California, the plaintiff responded to an ad in the Korea Times for the Wilshire Law Center. The plaintiff made an appointment with defendant Lee, who allegedly represented himself to the plaintiff as an attorney. Lee purportedly stated that he could competently represent the plaintiff in her family law matter and solve all of her problems for a $5,000 retainer. The plaintiff thus paid the retainer. In fact, defendant Lee was not an attorney, but a purported paralegal. He owned and operated the Wilshire Law Office and contracted with new attorneys to provide certain legal services for clients. While the defendant had three different lawyers appear as attorneys of record for the plaintiff during an approximate 18-month period, nothing allegedly happened in her case. In fact, the plaintiffÆs efforts to resolve alleged child support arrearages with the Riverside District Attorney came to a halt, prompting the District Attorney to take action against plaintiffÆs professional licenses. One of the attorneys whose signatures appeared on court documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff testified that he never knew the defendant, never heard of the plaintiff and that his signature on a Substitution of Attorney form was forged. The plaintiff ultimately retained an attorney who was able to resurrect her family law case and bring it to a successful resolution.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $30,000, but the defendant only offered $5,000.
Damages
The plaintiff sought the return of the $5000 retainer, $18,000 in attorneysÆ fees incurred as an alleged result of the defendantÆs neglect of her family law case and damages for emotional distress.
Result
The jury awarded the plaintiff $5,000 for the money she paid to the defendant, $18,000 in attorneysÆ fees incurred and $30,000 for emotional distress. The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed fraud and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.
Other Information
MARCH 30 VERSION
Deliberation
one day
Poll
12-0 (liability and general damages), 10-2 (punitive damages)
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390