Mireskandari v. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
B301785
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 8, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Shahrokh Mireskandari (a U.K. solicitor) retained Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (EWP) and partner Dominique Shelton to sue the Daily Mail in California for privacy/defamation based on articles and a purported NSC records access.
- After EWP filed an amended complaint in federal court, the Daily Mail moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute; the motion succeeded, the federal case was dismissed, and Mireskandari incurred substantial attorney fees and litigation costs. Separately, the U.K. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found against him and struck him from the Roll.
- Mireskandari sued his former lawyers for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, alleging they failed to advise him pre‑filing about anti‑SLAPP risks and alternative fora (e.g., Virginia) that could have avoided those risks.
- The trial court granted defendants’ summary adjudication motion as to the negligence claim (finding insufficient causation under a narrow reading of Viner), and, after an Evidence Code §402 hearing, excluded Mireskandari’s SDT‑related damages as speculative. A jury later found limited fiduciary liability but awarded no damages, finding plaintiff failed to mitigate.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed summary adjudication of the negligence claim (holding plaintiff may prove causation by showing he would not have filed the California suit and thus avoided foreseeable anti‑SLAPP costs), affirmed the exclusion of speculative SDT damages and other rulings, and denied sanctions despite procedural defects in the appellant appendix and brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary adjudication of malpractice claim was proper (causation) | Mireskandari: but‑for failure to warn about anti‑SLAPP, he would not have filed in California and would have avoided attorneys’ fees/sanctions—avoidance of needless litigation is a "more favorable result." | Defendants: Viner requires plaintiff to show he would have obtained a more favorable judgment in the underlying case (case‑within‑a‑case); here plaintiff cannot show that. | Reversed: Viner’s but‑for standard allows proof that plaintiff would have avoided filing and thereby avoided foreseeable litigation costs; summary adjudication improperly relied on a narrow reading of Viner. |
| Admissibility of damages tied to SDT disciplinary outcome | Mireskandari: discovery in a hypothetical Virginia suit would have produced evidence to prevent SDT sanctions and preserve his career; those downstream losses are recoverable. | Defendants: SDT outcome and downstream losses are too speculative; plaintiff’s chain of causation is conjectural. | Affirmed exclusion: trial court did not err—expert and percipient evidence left the chain too speculative for a jury (proximate cause lacking). |
| Whether communications with EWP general counsel (Swope) were privileged | Mireskandari: in‑house counsel communications should be discoverable because firm acted against client (conflict). | Defendants: communications with in‑house counsel were privileged; no blanket fiduciary/current‑client exception to privilege. | Affirmed trial court’s finding of a genuine attorney‑client relationship with in‑house counsel; privilege properly applied. |
| Whether leave to amend to reinstate punitive damages or other trial errors warranted new trial | Mireskandari: newly discovered facts and trial irregularities justify amendment/new trial. | Defendants: plaintiff delayed, offered no new substantive proof, and cannot show prejudice from alleged errors. | Denied: trial court reasonably exercised discretion to refuse late amendment; plaintiff failed to show prejudicial error for new trial given jury’s mitigation findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2003) (but‑for causation is the governing test in malpractice; case‑within‑a‑case is a method, not a rigid rule)
- Charnay v. Cobert, 145 Cal.App.4th 170 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (plaintiff may show causation by proving he would have avoided litigation and thus averted substantially greater loss)
- E‑Pass Technologies, Inc. v. Moses & Singer, LLP, 189 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (damages in malpractice suit may be attorney fees and liabilities incurred pursuing litigation the client reasonably should have been advised not to bring)
- Sindell v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 54 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (attorney fees incurred in unwanted litigation are recoverable damages in malpractice actions)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (trial court must exclude speculative expert testimony; acts as gatekeeper for causation evidence)