Authors: Gene Grossman
--------------
Having narrowly escaped certain death the night before, I’m still in a state of shock. I look up to see the dog walking into my aft stateroom with a letter in its mouth. This must be another dog-mail delivery. The kid obviously hasn’t yet taught it to knock first. I remove the letter, give him the customary pat on the head as a tip, and he goes back to the forward stateroom. I hope he never goes ‘postal’ on me. Too bad everyone doesn’t use Tyvek envelopes like Suzi does. I guess the rest of the postal world isn’t into dog-mail delivery yet. The moist envelope tells me that we are once again involved in Stuart’s asbestos lawsuit.
Dear Mr. Sharp:
We have reviewed with great interest the documentation you forwarded to us concerning your client’s alleged mesothelium inflammation.
Are we correct in assuming that your client’s diagnosis was not from a licensed physician, but a holistic care provider? Could this person actually be a faith healer?
This is the first time we have encountered documentation in such a fashion and we must caution you that any serious settlement of this matter may now be in jeopardy.
Very truly yours, Charles Indovine, Esq.
I knew it wouldn’t work, but had to try anyway. Now that Stuart’s big non-case is entirely blown, I might as well take one last parting shot. Stuart was told that it’s a lost cause and agrees that anything I want to do now is okay with him. Knowing the chances of recovery, Stuart insisted that if anything comes in on this case I should take a normal fee, so I agreed, and take one last parting shot with my next letter:
Dear Mr. Indovine:
Surely you must be aware that the world is changing. There are millions of people who do not subscribe to what you consider to be the normal types of treatment.
To question their methods is to question their faith, and in this changing world, it might not be advisable to question one’s faith, especially if one questioned is a Muslim, because to do so would be against the policy of the United States Government, and against accepted international behavior, attracting enemies in all quarters.
If you disagree, then we would be willing to let a jury decide the validity of my client’s faith in a public trial, which would no doubt garner worldwide attention to the fact that your client has a problem with a certain faith.
Very truly yours, Peter Sharp, Esq.
A copy of the letter is sent to Stuart, who lets me know that he doesn’t mind at all having undergone a temporary conversion to Islam if it helps settle the case.
Getting back into the legal swing of things really feels good. It’s much more interesting than the court appearances, which could have been done by the dog. Almost all of them are in the same Santa Monica courtroom. The judge is never on the bench, preferring to get more work done settling cases and clearing the court’s busy calendar by conducting conferences in chambers. Her clerk, the attractive Asian woman, takes care of all other matters. If the Judge’s attention is required, the case file is brought into chambers and she deals with it there, sending her answer back with the clerk.
--------------
Myra’s lawyer won’t give in, and neither will I. They’re now so swept up in their greedy desire to get a piece of my legal fees that they don’t do the basic homework of trying to find out what the fees actually were. This is a common mistake made by emotional litigants. Keeping a cool head and planning strategy can often be much more important than knowing the law.
Years ago when I started to practice law, a case came in where a dog grooming parlor had accidentally killed my client’s poodle, which should have been an indication early on where my practice was ‘going.’ Prior to going to trial, the courts allow what is called ‘Civil Discovery,’ by which each side can send written questions (‘Interrogatories’) to the other party and also demand to take oral testimony (‘Depose’) prospective witnesses, to get information about the case. Defense firms usually bill on an hourly basis, so it’s quite common for them to send out at least one set of Interrogatories. It helps build up their billable hours on the case.
The grooming parlor’s defense firm must have specialized in automobile accident cases, because the boiler-plate set of Interrogs they sent to us were mostly comprised of many questions about the plaintiff’s vehicle, driving record, driver’s license number, etc. etc. These questions weren’t all relevant to the matter at hand, but we answered most of them anyway except for the one that requested her driver’s license number. We refused to answer that one, making a relevancy objection. The defense firm went ballistic, threatening to haul us into court, demanding that we pay punitive sanctions for failure to answer, and did their best to scare us in a way that also increased their billable hours to the insurance company.
An ongoing battle ensued between us, with menacing letters going back and forth. We kept refusing to answer that question and disclose her driver’s license number unless a settlement offer was on the table. The battle wound up being a macho matter for the defense firm. They wanted to show their client that they actually could get the number, so they made a settlement offer based on our providing the driver’s license info. We accepted the settlement amount, but informed them that we were still going to resist providing the information.
They couldn’t take it any more. This was becoming a battle of honor for them and as far as they were concerned, my last refusal was the last straw. A decision was made to go for my throat, so they requested a court hearing date, hoping that the judge could be persuaded to make us answer the question and provide them with her driver’s license number. We went to the hearing and I strenuously argued about the relevancy of the question.
Once the case was called the judge, being a nice old guy, let me know his feelings about the matter. “Mister Sharp, I tend to agree with you. Your client’s driver’s license number doesn’t seem very relevant to the death of her dog, but quite often a defense firm likes to have that information for other reasons, like seeing if there are any suspensions for drunk driving or vehicular manslaughter, or some other reason that might reflect on one’s credibility as a witness. So in this particular case, seeing as we’re all brother officers of the court, I’d like you to do me a personal favor: would you please, here in open court, state for the record what your client’s driver’s license number is?” I hesitated for a while. The defense firm was gloating. They looked at each other with smiles of success.
“
Your Honor, we’ll be glad to comply, but for the record, we’d like the court to know that there has been a settlement offer made and accepted. The offer is contingent only upon our providing the information you just asked us for. What we’d appreciate now is you asking the defense firm to let the court hold their settlement check and act as an independent escrow officer. My client would feel much better if you did, because she seems worried that once we give them this information they’ll come up with some other reason to not pay her. I tried to explain to her that there won’t be any other problems, but she still wants me to ask you to hold the settlement draft.”
The judge looked out over the top of his glasses towards my client, who was sitting next to me, wearing her overcoat and babushka. She looked like she just got off the bus from Moscow. “Well all right, Mister Sharp. Bailiff, please pick up that settlement draft and bring it up here.” Once he had it in his hand, he waved it in the air, looking towards my client for approval. She nodded at him with an appreciate smile on her face. “Your turn Mister Sharp.” I took a deep breath and then gave him my answer.
“
Your honor, my client does not now and has never possessed a driver’s license in the State of California or any other jurisdiction. She’s never learned how to drive a car.”
The lead defense lawyer jumped up “your honor, our offer of settlement was contingent upon us getting her driver’s license number, and we didn’t get it, so she shouldn’t be allowed to get the settlement.”
The judge knew what I’d done to the defense firm and appreciated my tactic of whipping them into a frenzy that ultimately embarrassed them. They were so intent on getting the irrelevant information, that the amount of the settlement was relegated to no longer being the main issue.
The moral of that story is simple: when something asked for is denied, quite often the battle centers on getting that which is denied, and the underlying reason for the request is put on the back burner, if not ignored completely. And I am about to teach that lesson to the rapidly becoming famous female deputy district attorney who was formerly my wife. A court hearing has been set for next week, and with Jack Bibberman’s help I have all the documentation I need. Let the games begin.
--------------
The hearing is being held in the downtown Los Angeles Courthouse, so that Myra doesn’t have to travel too far from her office. When I walk into the courtroom Myra and her attorney Daniel Vincent are already seated at the counsel table. As is customary before the judge comes out, the bailiff makes his usual announcement. “Remain seated and come to order. The Superior Court of California, Department 86 is now in session, the Honorable Ronald B. Axelrod presiding.
That having been done, the judge enters the courtroom through the door behind the clerk’s desk, steps up and assumes his throne-like position on that raised area referred to as ‘the bench.’
When the case is called, each one of us stands up and states our name and representation for the record. Her attorney makes his opening statement.
“
Your Honor, as our papers filed with the court indicate, this matter concerns a re-modification of an agreement. We contend that Petitioner was fraudulently induced to enter into this agreement, whereby she waived certain rights, and that there was no sufficient consideration for her waiver. We intend to offer evidence showing that the Respondent intentionally defrauded Petitioner by inducing her to accept as consideration an item that he knew had actually decreased substantially in value. The fact of this depreciation was neither known by Petitioner nor told to her by Respondent. In addition to that fraudulent act, Respondent knew or should have known that his ability to earn income would be substantially reduced, so that promises made to Petitioner about future earnings could not possibly be fulfilled.
“
Based on this evidence, Petitioner will ask the court to invalidate Petitioner’s agreement to accept said worthless consideration, and reinstate her original waived right to a share of respondent’s income, which has greatly increased in value to date.”
Very nice. I couldn’t have done better myself. I wonder, should I fold now, or make them work a little harder? I think I’ll push them a little further towards the edge. Having just had my goin’-to-church suit cleaned and pressed, now might be a good time to give it a workout. I walk over to the lectern that stands between the counsel tables. The court reporter looks up at me, no doubt admiring the suit and my yellow ‘power’ necktie.
“
Your Honor, if it may please the court, Respondent would ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact that Petitioner’s former attorney has been arrested on a charge of conspiracy to practice law without a license by assisting a non-licensed person to impersonate Respondent, thereby causing this Respondent to wrongfully be suspended from the practice of law. The State Bar Disciplinary Court case number and criminal court case numbers have been included with our response, filed with the court.
“
The Court is also being asked to take notice of the fact that said conspiracy having been exposed, Respondent’s license to practice law has been reinstated to active status with the State Bar. Respondent therefore contends that the Petitioner knew or should have known about the possibility of Respondent’s suspension in advance of Respondent becoming aware, due to the possibility of Petitioner having been involved in the frame-up as an un-named co-conspirator”
That does it. Vincent and Myra both jump up out of their chairs. Vincent is shouting. “We strenuously object, Your Honor. Respondent hasn’t the slightest basis of fact upon which to base that accusation and we demand, er, we request that the court have that portion of his statement stricken from the record. Furthermore…”
It worked out just right. The buttons were pushed, the expected reaction occurred, and the judge is getting sick of it. He taps his gavel a couple of times to shut Vincent up and interrupts him mid-sentence with a pronouncement that will ultimately help me get what I’m going after.
“
All right, counsel, this is a court of law, and I don’t want to see it become a pissing contest between separated spouses who obviously are not enamored of each other. All I’ve heard so far is this ‘he-said, she-said’ argument about evidence that’ll surely be mostly hearsay and innuendo.
“
I’ve read the complete file on this case including all of the documents, exhibits, pictures of burning boats, affidavits, etcetera, ad nauseum, and at this point, I’d like to give you both an indication of my leaning in this matter. The Petitioner may have gotten screwed royally, but the Respondent also got a raw deal. I don’t think that a deputy district attorney would have gotten involved in that mess with former attorney Koontz. He’s appeared in this Court many times and I have the greatest confidence in his ability to have done the entire frame-up of this Respondent without the help of Petitioner.
“
Here’s the bottom line. Mister Sharp, I’d suggest very strongly that you and Mister Vincent take the opportunity of the recess I’m about to take to sit down and work this problem out, because if this hearing goes to its conclusion, you may wind up with the short end of a very big stick.