LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A California law firm that became part of Locke Lord might still face liability for its representation of a disgruntled client who tried to sue the London-based Daily Mail.
Shahrokh Mireskandari’s lawsuit was tossed when the newspaper successfully filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which protects defendants when they engage in protected speech. Mireskandari eventually sued his lawyers at Edwards Wildman Palmer in Los Angeles Superior Court, but his case was tossed.
An April 8 ruling by the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal reinstates his claims against the firm.
“Because an attorney owes a duty of care to advise a client of foreseeable risks of litigation before filing a lawsuit on the client’s behalf, we conclude Mireskandari asserted a viable claim that, but for Defendants’ negligent failure to advise him of the risks associated with a potential anti-SLAPP motion, he would not have filed his lawsuit in California and would not have incurred damages from litigating and losing an anti-SLAPP motion,” the decision says.
The Second District’s decision allows Mireskandari to proceed with a professional negligence claim but affirms the judgment tossing his others. It denies a motion for sanctions against the firm.
In 2008, the Daily Mail published a series of articles that said Mireskandari, a lawyer in the United Kingdom, had been convicted of fraud in connection with a telemarketing scam, lied about a degree from the University of Pennsylvania, failed to pass his law school classes, obtained a law degree from the American University of Hawaii that was later voided and overcharged clients for work.
Mireskandari faced disciplinary proceedings and hired Peter Herbert, the chair of the U.K.’s Society of Black Lawyers. Herbert brought on Brett Bocchieri, who referred the matter to Dominique Shelton at EWP.
An idea floated was that a Los Angeles-based Daily Mail reporter misrepresented that he had Mireskandari’s consent to search the National Student Clearinghouse website to access his education records.
EWP represented Mireskandari in a lawsuit alleging Garner hacked the confidential education records.
But the case went awry. The U.K. disciplinary body affirmed the reporting’s findings and that if he were allowed to continue practicing law, he would pose a “very significant risk to the public,” the decision says.
Mireskandari switched lawyers but it didn’t matter. A federal court granted the Daily Mail’s motion to strike several of his claims in his third amended complaint in 2013.
A state court lawsuit was dismissed after the Daily Mail filed the anti-SLAPP motion, months after Mireskandari had sued EWP, alleging the firm failed to advise him of the anti-SLAPP danger.
The Los Angeles trial court found it was not foreseeable that Mireskandari’s new lawyers would file a second amended complaint against the Daily Mail.
“Thus, the court ruled Mireskandari could introduce evidence of only those attorneys fees incurred through the date of the (federal) court’s anti-SLAPP ruling in the Daily Mail case,” the decision says.
All the while, Mireskandari sought damages of more than $200 million based on the U.K. disciplinary board’s ruling. A jury in the legal malpractice case returned a $0 damages award, finding EWP breached its fiduciary duty by having a team of lawyers act against Mireskandari.
The appeals court ruling says EWP didn’t fully make its case on Mireskandari’s professional negligence claim. He said he paid costs and attorneys fees of about $262,000 because EWP didn’t advise him against his original suit against the Daily Mail.
When the anti-SLAPP motion was granted, he was also on the hook for the other side’s attorneys fees.
“In moving for summary adjudication, Defendants did not challenge the allegation that they breached the standard of care,” the ruling says.
“Instead, they argued they could not be held liable for this alleged malpractice because the risk they negligently failed to disclose predictably came to fruition – the Daily Mail brought a successful anti-SLAPP motion and Mireskandari, saddled with his own substantial attorney fees and the Daily Mail’s, dismissed the federal case.
“IT was a classic catch-22 argument… We must reject it.”