Areas of Practice
Expert Witness
Mr. Oyler and his associates have been utilized as expert witnesses 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."