Defense Verdict Obtained in Legal Malpractice Binding Arbitration
July 1, 2003
Susan M. Hilton and Pascale Gagnon-Morris of the firm's Los Angles office obtained a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case, based on a family law underlying matter.
Plaintiff, a man in his forties, filed an action for malpractice against the attorney representing him in his marriage dissolution action. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in his representation because he did not prepare the necessary documents to be presented as evidence at trial, then "withdrew" as counsel on the day of the trial. Plaintiff claimed hundreds of thousands dollars in damages.
Plaintiff was married for eleven years and had two small children when the dissolution proceedings began. Prior to being represented by Defendant, Plaintiff and his wife stipulated to the entry of an order in September 1995, which required Plaintiff to make monthly child support payments in the amount of $675 and monthly spousal support payments in the amount of $325. Plaintiff's wife was to maintain custody of the children with visitation rights for Plaintiff. A modification was thereafter entered, at the request of Plaintiff's wife, requiring that the pick up and drop off of the children was to occur at the police station. This modification was necessitated by the fact that Plaintiff had threatened to throw acid in his estranged wife's face, had sent her envelopes with cockroaches in them and had generally harassed and intimated his wife. While represented by his first counsel, Plaintiff executed documents under penalty of perjury in connection with his financial situation and his property claims in the dissolution action.
After terminating his relationship with his first counsel, Plaintiff represented himself in pro per, until he eventually retained the Defendant in the Spring of 1996. The trial of the dissolution action was continued several times because Plaintiff failed and refused to provide Defendant with the necessary documents to support his claims for reimbursement of alleged separate property contributions, as well as other claims, which he sought to have advanced in the divorce trial.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff was admonished by the Court to produce the documents in order to present his case for trial on the first trial date, he never produced one shred of paper. On the next date set for trial, Defendant attempted to secure yet another continuance for Plaintiff in a last effort to provide Plaintiff with time to secure the documentation he insisted he had to support his positions in the dissolution action. Plaintiff's wife opposed the request and the Court denied the request for continuance, after relieving Defendant as attorney of record for Plaintiff.
Later that same day, Plaintiff appeared at the Orange County Courthouse to proceed, in pro per, in his divorce trial. Plaintiff never requested an attorney or a continuance to obtain an attorney. Rather, he stated that he was ready and prepared to proceed. Plaintiff cross-examined witnesses at the trial and offered arguments to the Court but did not submit any documents to substantiate any of his claims. The court rendered a judgment that maintained the terms of the stipulation previously entered into between Plaintiff and his wife regarding child and spousal support, custody and visitation rights.
During the five day binding arbitration of the malpractice action, Plaintiff submitted an enormous amount of paperwork to support his property claims that were allegedly lost as a result of Defendant's negligence in the handling of the matter. He also testified to the source of the money that was the basis of his claims, a "magic safe", which he admitted never having mentioning to Defendant. Plaintiff's own expert in the malpractice action was not informed of the existence of the "magic safe" until after Plaintiff came up with this information during the arbitration. After a lengthy cross-examination, Plaintiff's expert concluded that Plaintiff would not have any claims based on the facts that were presented to him - all coming from Plaintiff's own testimony.
The Arbitrator rendered a defense verdict stating that Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof.
