KABAYAN vs. KNAPP, PETERSON & CLARK

In December 1999 Jury trial, Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Judge Torres Testified on behalf of Plaintiff against Law Firm as to applicable standard of care to advise client of cost of litigation and chance of success in prosecuting lawsuit against institutional lender who made construction loan on a shopping center development.

NEWBARTH vs. ASCANO

In March 2000, testified in Central District on behalf of an attorney Defendant, who was accused of malpractice after the Plaintiff former client, the victim in an automobile accident case, reneged on the settlement verdict and sued her attorney for legal malpractice. The Defendant attorney obtained a 12-0 defense verdict.

REVERE FINANCIAL vs. GETZELS

In August 2003, testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Judge Cesar C. Sarmiento on behalf of an attorney Defendant accused of legal malpractice after an alleged unsatisfactory verdict in the underlying case alleging breach of warranty in the sale of a 23 unit apartment building. Testified as to applicable standard of care for attorney accused of malpractice in failing to call necessary expert witnesses, failing to take appropriate discovery, failing to assert additional defenses of rescission and reformation. After a 15 day jury trial. Attorney Defendant obtained a defense verdict and recovered on his complaint for attorney fees. Retained by Wilson, Kenna & Borys.

CORDIER vs. TKACH

In July 2004 testified in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Burbank in front of Judge Zaven Sinanian on behalf of an attorney accused of legal malpractice in response to a complaint to collect attorney fees. The claims of malpractice were failure to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings at the time of the trial in the underlying case, failure to prosecute an appeal after a jury awarded $271,000.00 in the underlying case. Defendants claim the attorney had overcharged for his services and that he had spent an unreasonable number of hours in handling the underlying case, which was a five week jury trial. The Judge dismissed the legal malpractice claims on motion and the jury awarded attorney fees consistent with the attorney's statement for services.

HEFTY vs. FRIEDMAN, et al.

In August 2005, testified in the Los Angeles Superior Court in Santa Monica, Judge Jacqueline Connor against an attorney, whose conduct was below the applicable standard of care in violations of California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.400 (d); ethical violation of In Re Miller 2 Cal. State Bar 423. There was an issue as to the duration of the attorney's duty pursuant to B.A.J.I.6.37.3 and an issue as to when the statute of limitations for malpractice commenced. In a bifurcated trial, the Judge found breach of the duty of care against the handling attorney.

GONZALES vs. FAULK

In August 2006, testified in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Judge Paul Gutman against an attorney, who had abandoned his client after entering into two separate fee agreements. As a consequence of the abandonment, Plaintiff lost a lawsuit for specific performance of a parcel of real property and suffered additional monetary damages as a consequence. This case of negligence per se was based upon violation of Business and Professional Code, Section 6068, subsections n m, which among other things requires the attorney to keep the client informed of a violation of Rule 3-110 "Failing to Act Competently" in numerous respects and a violation of Rule 3-500, requiring an attorney to keep the client reasonably informed of significant developments in the case.

PIKOOS vs. GREAVES

In February 2007 testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Judge Elihu Berle in a jury trial on behalf of a transactional attorney accused of malpractice in preparing a super majority shareholder agreement in favor of a multi-million dollar investor over the previous sole shareholder owner of the business. The Complaint alleged the super majority agreement had to be the subject of a change of article of incorporation versus a change in the bylaws and a shareholder agreement between the parties. Defendant attorney obtained a 11 to 1 defense verdict. Retained by Yee & Belilove, LLP.

MARATHON ENTERTAINMENT vs. FOX & SPILLANE, LLP

In July 2007 testified in JAMS Binding Arbitration, Arbitrator Barbara Reeves on behalf of attorneys accused of committing legal malpractice in three separate underlying matters. Marathon had lost all three underlying matters and asserted the losses were the result of attorney malpractice. In the first case against actress Nia Vardalos, Plaintiff lost at the Labor Commission level. Thereafter, entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was breached and resulted in an Arbitration where the arbitrator found against Claimant in an amount in excess of $750,000.00. There were allegations of malpractice in the confidentiality and other terms of the Settlement Agreement with actress Vardalos. In the second case against actor Reggie Hayes, Defendants were accused of mishandling of the jury selection, cross-examination and burden of proof issues. Expert opinion was provided in support of the attorneys conduct. Finally in the case against Blasi, Defendants were accused of negligence in defending a Motion for Summary Judgment arising out of interpretation issues of the talent agencies act, which was the claim that also started with the Labor Commission. Attorneys were accused of negligence in the preparation of the Appellate brief. Defendant attorneys were successful in obtaining a Judgment in their favor against the charges on all three underlying matters. In addition, they were successful on their Cross-Complaint for attorney fees in an amount in excess of $200,000.00. Retained by Pat Golson of Wilson, Elser & Moskowitz.

CAMPBELL vs. SHALVOY
January 2008 - Expert Assignment

Retained by Plaintiff, who accepted a reduced settlement following a NASD claim against a broker and his firm, for negligently handling and overworking his stock account in 2001 causing a loss of fifty percent of his portfolio. The Defendant attorney had the case for over 3 years, but was unable to bring the matter to arbitration. Malpractice was based upon lack of prosecution, failure to properly comply with NASD procedures, violation of Business and Professions Code, Section 6068, requiring the attorney to keep his client informed of all meaningful activity in the case. Plaintiff obtained a favorable settlement result at the conclusion of jury selection in the Torrance Courthouse in front of Judge Bob Hight, Department D. Expert qualifications were established as of my experience as a NASD arbitrator between 1995 and 2005. Retained by Avila and Peros of Manhattan Beach, California.

SHEPPARD MULLIN, ET AL. vs. BINFORD
October 2008 - Expert Assignment in Fee Dispute

Retained by Plaintiff Sheppard Mullin, et al. to give opinion testimony concerning the reasonable value of fees incurred in handling a multiple year lawsuit following Mr. Binford's purchase of a pharmacy for $1.2 million dollars. Binford alleged fraudulent books, misrepresentations as well as insurance fraud by the seller. Attorneys had obtained a writ of attachment and attempted to lobby with State legislature and represented Binford in responding to Department of Health Services investigation. Attorney fee exceeded $300,000.00. Binding arbitration in front of William Sheffield of Judicate West. Retained by Robert Beall of Sheppard Mullin.

SCHNEIDER vs. MELTON AND USHER

In February 2009, testified in Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Honorable Soussan Bruguera, on behalf of attorney accused of malpractice in the trial of an underlying case of real estate fraud sale causing damages in excess of $2,000,000. Buyer sued for damages arising out of the sale of a 13 acre parcel in Palmdale, California. Defendant attorney substituted into the case three days into the trial. The case had been compromised by discovery sanctions, striking the answer leaving only the issue of damages. Purchaser was seeking $7,500,000, including loss of profits of $5,800,000. Underlying court awarded a judgment of $1,400,000, finding that amount of damage in the sales price. This is a case of no good deed goes unpunished. The attorney inherited an impossible assignment and was then accused of multiple claims of malpractice, including non-retention of an expert witnesses, non-disclosure of financial information and poor cross-examination of expert witnesses, proximately causing the adverse judgement. Attorney was successful in obtaining a judgement in his favor on all claims. Retained by Ulric E. J. Usher.

DOLKINOV vs. WERSHOW

In February 2010 testified in Central District, Honorable Ernest Hiroshige, defending an attorney in compliance with the standard of care in representing a client defending a contractor's claim in connection with real estate construction of two homes involving a sub-division requiring driveway access over neighbors property. Plaintiff asserted negligence in failing to designate expert witnesses and Plaintiff had not funded the litigation costs. There were issues concerning the scope of the attorney's assignment regarding appealing from the rescission of a building permit and whether the settlement with the surveyor was approved by Plaintiff. Hung jury. Retained by Kirtland & Packard.

PATIN vs. BOHRER

March of 2010 testified in Los Angeles Central District in front of Honorable Rex Heeseman on behalf of contractor against attorney for malpractice based on the following: Plaintiff found and built a custom home relying on an written agreement, which was lost and subsequent oral agreement with his partner that the home would be theirs for the rest of their lives. The partner reneged and evicted Plaintiff. Defendant attorney's lawsuit was lost on summary judgment. (1) Defendant attorney submitted the wrong contract, which was unsigned by Plaintiff; (2) did not sue for quantum meruit; (3) did not sue under appropriate exceptions to the statute of frauds; (4) did not properly value the damages to Plaintiff; (5) did not properly seek equitable relief; (6) improperly amended the complaint causing the court to find the amendment a sham pleading; (7) doing inadequate discovery; and (8) failure to designate experts. Retained by David Romley.