5707 Corsa Ave, Ste. 106, Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818)707-7065 Fax: (818)735-9992
E-mail: crolin@chrisrolin.com
Christopher Rolin is a highly effective trial attorney with over 41 years of trial activity in civil litigation. His area of emphasis is attorney malpractice, focusing on the applicable community standard of care for practicing attorneys in both civil litigation and transaction areas of law.
He has taken over 90 cases to judgment and verdict and settled several hundred cases. The range of cases successfully taken to trial include legal malpractice, construction defect cases; probate and trust cases, including, surcharging fees and costs asserted by executors and attorneys, as well as will contests; real estate broker agency non disclosure issues, negligence and misrepresentation claims; breach of lease agreements; limited partnership disputes; specific performance of real estate contracts; creditor's rights suits including obtaining writs of attachment, writs of execution, temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. He has also litigated attorney fee disputes and has litigated and served as an expert witness in attorney fee disputes.
His trial experience has resulted in numerous assignments as an expert witness on trial and the attorneys duty to render services in compliance with the community standard of care. He has been retained as an expert by both Plaintiffs and Defendants in legal malpractice cases. He has spoken before numerous professional groups concerning trial practice issues. He obtained his Bachelor's Degree from the University of California at Berkeley and J.D. from the University of Southern California in 1965. Martindale Hubbell AV Rating.
Mr. Rolin was an associate and partner at Meserve, Mumper & Hughes until 1972. Thereafter, Mr. Rolin was a partner at Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel until 1988. He served on the executive committee and was the partner in charge of the legal malpractice unit between 1977 and 1983 and, during that time, tried between two and three legal malpractice cases per year to verdict. Thereafter, he was the partner in charge of the business litigation and real estate unit of the firm. He then practiced as a principal with Rodi, Pollock, Pettker, Galbraith & Phillips until 1996 when he joined Newkirk & Newkirk, changing the firm name to Newkirk, Newkirk, Rolin & Drucker. Since 2001, he has relocated to Woodland Hills and Westlake Village, as a sole practitioner.
Professional Activities
Member from 1975 - 1987 - Board of Directors from 1980 - 1985
Membership Chairman 1991 and 1992
Program Chairman Annual Seminar 1983
American Board of Trial Advocates
Member since 1984
Past Member of Board of Directors
Regular Participant on Faculty of Annual Trial School
American Arbitration Association
Arbitrator since 1977 through 1994 (Commercial Section)
Has Presided as Arbitrator in over Fifty Hearings
Superior Court Arbitration Panel
Member since 1980
Member of Santa Monica Superior Court Friday Crash Settlement Panel
Has Arbitrated matters on a full range of Business Litigation and Real Estate Problems, as well as Attorney Fee Disputes The Range of Damages in Cases Handled $50,000.00 to 1.5 Million Dollars
Legion Lex, University of Southern California
Member of Board of Directors since 1991
Chairman of Fund Raising Events 1993 - 1995
Secretary 1995/1996
President 1997/1998
Los Angeles County Bar
Section on Law Office Management
Program Chairman, 12th Annual Law Office Management Institute, October 1994
Section Chairman, 1995/1997
Lawyers Professional Liability Bar Association of Southern California
Member from January, 1996
President October 1999 through October 2003
Meetings, roundtable discussions and lecture presentations are held on the third Wednesday of each month. Guests are welcome.
Please call (818)707-7065 or E-Mail at crolin@chrisrolin.com for details.
Expert Testimony in Superior Court Trials
KABAYAN vs. KNAPP, PETERSON & CLARKIn 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.