 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hashimoto v. Republic Insurance Company2/13/2002
basis as a witness in the then upcoming bad faith action. The subpoena provided the name, address and telephone number of Mr. Stolpman's firm if he desired further information. Callas declared he informed the process server the Chadbourne & Parke law firm represented him. He also declared he told the process server Mr. Stolpman and his firm should contact them instead. Callas then declared he telephoned Mr. Stolpman to request he not be called as a witness until his wife had sufficiently recuperated from a scheduled surgery. Callas claimed the two men discussed not only witness scheduling, but also the substantive merits of Callas' earlier declaration stating he in fact had sent a reservation of rights letter. Callas declared Mr. Stolpman accused him of throwing a "monkey wrench into the litigation," and further intimidated him by threatening to embarrass him on the stand.
Republic's counsel, Ms. Linda Dakin-Grimm then of Chadbourne & Parke, also filed a declaration in support of the motion to disqualify the Hashimotos' counsel. Counsel declared she had "entered into an attorney-client relationship with former Republic employee George Callas in August, 1999." Counsel further declared Mr. Stolpman knew she and her firm represented Callas because he knew she and her firm had represented other former Republic employees at their depositions.
The trial court held a hearing on Republic's disqualification motion on the date set for trial. The process server testified Callas did not mention the Chadbourne & Parke law firm, and did not even mention he was represented by counsel. Had Callas provided such information, the process server stated he would have informed Mr. Stolpman and included mention of the fact in his report to the law firm. When the process server asked how Callas could be reached, Callas did not provide the law firm's telephone number. Instead, Callas handed the process server a business card with his work telephone number as well as his home telephone number.
Callas testified he had received a Juris Doctorate degree in the 1970's but had not practiced law. Callas testified he knew if represented by counsel he had no obligation to speak to opposing counsel. Callas had been employed in the insurance industry for several decades and had once been the claims adjuster on the Hashimotos' claims against the Horeczkos. Callas testified he had informed the process server he was represented by the law firm of Chadbourne & Parke. Later in his testimony Callas testified he called the Chadbourne firm after receiving the trial subpoena and a representative of the Chadbourne firm told him to direct his inquires to Mr. Stolpman at his law firm. Callas testified he called Mr. Stolpman and informed him the Chadbourne & Parke law firm represented him. Callas later testified he told Mr. Stolpman to direct the trial subpoena to "his attorneys" but did not specify any attorney by name. On cross-examination, Callas admitted he had not signed, nor been asked to sign, a written retainer agreement. Callas also acknowledged no one at the Chadbourne & Parke law firm had discussed a conflict waiver agreement with him.
Despite his training and years of experience Callas testified he called Mr. Stolpman to find out what it meant to be "on call." They discussed Callas' scheduling concerns. Callas provided Mr. Stolpman with his home telephone and fax numbers so he could be reached anytime. The two men then discussed the substance of Callas' upcoming testimony. Callas testified he felt intimidated and threatened by Mr. Stolpman's comments to the effect Callas would be embarrassed on the stand if he continued to adhere to his statements regarding the reservation of rights
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|