|
Expert Witness
Mr. Oyler has been
utilized as an expert witness in resolving disputes between clients and their
counsel, representing dissatisfied clients in some instances and prior
counsel in other instances. This is often due to the Family Law arena people
having been dissatisfied with their counsel.
Part of an expert witness report
from 1998:
Plaintiff served on defendant her designation of experts and expert witness
declarations, identifying Connolly Oyler as an expert witness who would
"testify as to the handling of the underlying dissolution of marriage
proceedings including, but not limited to: the standard of care for attorneys
practicing in the field of family law and Defendant's failure to meet that
standard in the underlying dissolution of marriage proceedings; his opinions
concerning settlement and the stipulated '[further judgment on reserved
issues]'; the failure to handle the dissolution proceedings for Plaintiff in
a manner which would have resulted in a fair and secure division of community
property; the lack of security for the $500,000.00 'equalizing' promissory
note; the reasons Defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care for
attorneys handling such dissolution actions and the causation or effect of
such handling, through Defendant's actions and/or omissions, on the losses
and expenses [plaintiff] incurred and/or became subject to pay." Plaintiff's
counsel declared that Oyler, as an expert witness, "will be sufficiently
familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition concerning
the specific testimony, including any opinion and its basis that he expects
to give at trial."
Defendant took Oyler's deposition in June 1998, the month before the trial.
Defense counsel asked Oyler to state "everything that you think that
[defendant] did that was not up to the standard of care of attorneys in the
position he was in." Plaintiff's counsel objected to the question as
asking for a narrative, but did not instruct Oyler not to answer. Oyler
answered as follows: "In connection with the note, if there was security
in the note, it should have been prepared forthwith, immediately,
contemporaneously with the preparation of the note. Secondly . . . [t]he
security for the note should have been every single asset which the husband
received under and pursuant to the further judgment on reserved issues.
Thirdly, it fell beneath the standard of care not to have interest on the
note. . . . Fourthly, the note should have provided for installment
payments."
|
Attorneys at Law:
Connolly Oyler
Donald Woldman
Ruth Lynn Estep
Soheila Omrani
Ed Knerr
Akimi Nakagawa
Vanessa
Neumann
|
