According to legal documents filed in court by Wayne Call, co-founder of the law firm Call & Jensen in Newport Beach, California, Appellate Justice Jeffrey King (Ret.), acting as an arbitrator, concluded on March 29, 2017, that attorney John Egley of Call & Jensen “operated below the standard of care” while representing his client under an “inherent conflict of interest.” According to these documents, filed by Wayne Call on July 12, 2017, in Orange County Superior Court, Justice King’s signed Tentative Decision concluded on March 29 that Call & Jensen attorney John Egley violated Rule 3-310(b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Final Award issued by Justice King, on June 22, 2017, states in part:
“Here, we are dealing with an issue of a lawyer, who is not only representing a party in litigation but is also a percipient witness to the underlying events. There is an inherent conflict between the two roles [litigator and witness].” (See, Final Award, p. 11.)
“There is no doubt in my mind that prior to trial, Mr. Egley should have considered the ‘advice of counsel’ defense and should have discussed it with Mr. Bauer. Not doing so fell below the standard of care.” (p.13)
“Given that Mr. Egley is both the attorney representing Mr. Bauer and a possible favorable witness, it is an issue which clearly should have been recognized, considered and discussed with the client for purposes of allowing the client to make an informed decision as to whether Egley should act as counsel, or be a witness. This was not done and should have been done.” (p.13).
“I do believe that Mr. Egley fell below the standard of care in not recognizing and discussing with Mr. Bauer the issue that Egley was a percipient witness to some of the underlying facts and whether Bauer wanted Egley to be trial counsel or a witness on the issue of advice of counsel.” (p. 21).
These conclusions resulted from a lawsuit in which Mr. Egely served as lead trial counsel, losing a jury trial in Orange County pursuant to a jury verdict issued on June 16, 2015, against his Orange County client. The arbitrator determined that Call & Jenson failed to inform the firm’s client as to the possibility of Mr. Egley testifying as a witness to the company’s decision to terminate an employee. The jury awarded the former employee compensatory damages in the total amount of $138,372; and then, on June 18, 2015, awarded an additional $400,000 in punitive damages. Judgment was entered on August 11, 2015 against Call & Jensen’s client – in the sum of $538,372 -- and then subsequently reduced by the Judge to $263,372.
Justice King concluded in his Tentative Decision, signed on March 29, 2017, that John Egley’s behavior in handling the employment lawsuit constituted an “inherent conflict of interest” in violation of Rule 3-310(b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct -- by failing to recognize his witness testimony as a possible defense to the lawsuit and by failing to explain the potential defense to the client. Justice King then concluded, in his Final Award dated June 22, 2017, that Mr. Egley’s behavior “fell below the standard of care” and resulted in an “inherent conflict between the two roles [litigator and witness].”
Despite these arbitration opinions issued by Justice King, Call & Jensen (through Wayne Call) continues to seek an additional $1.1 million in attorney fees, on top of just under $1 million in fees his firm already billed while losing the underlying trial. Justice King has now twice denied the additional $1.1 million in attorney fees sought by Call & Jensen, which resulted in the law firm filing a Petition in court to “Correct and Confirm Arbitration Award.” Thus, Wayne Call is now seeking through court intervention to obtain a massive payday (over $2 million in attorney fees in total) from his firm’s client whom Call & Jensen treated “below the standard of care” while operating under an “inherent conflict."
best law office Reviews
The Final Award issued by Justice King, on June 22, 2017, states in part:
“Here, we are dealing with an issue of a lawyer, who is not only representing a party in litigation but is also a percipient witness to the underlying events. There is an inherent conflict between the two roles [litigator and witness].” (See, Final Award, p. 11.)
“There is no doubt in my mind that prior to trial, Mr. Egley should have considered the ‘advice of counsel’ defense and should have discussed it with Mr. Bauer. Not doing so fell below the standard of care.” (p.13)
“Given that Mr. Egley is both the attorney representing Mr. Bauer and a possible favorable witness, it is an issue which clearly should have been recognized, considered and discussed with the client for purposes of allowing the client to make an informed decision as to whether Egley should act as counsel, or be a witness. This was not done and should have been done.” (p.13).
“I do believe that Mr. Egley fell below the standard of care in not recognizing and discussing with Mr. Bauer the issue that Egley was a percipient witness to some of the underlying facts and whether Bauer wanted Egley to be trial counsel or a witness on the issue of advice of counsel.” (p. 21).
These conclusions resulted from a lawsuit in which Mr. Egely served as lead trial counsel, losing a jury trial in Orange County pursuant to a jury verdict issued on June 16, 2015, against his Orange County client. The arbitrator determined that Call & Jenson failed to inform the firm’s client as to the possibility of Mr. Egley testifying as a witness to the company’s decision to terminate an employee. The jury awarded the former employee compensatory damages in the total amount of $138,372; and then, on June 18, 2015, awarded an additional $400,000 in punitive damages. Judgment was entered on August 11, 2015 against Call & Jensen’s client – in the sum of $538,372 -- and then subsequently reduced by the Judge to $263,372.
Justice King concluded in his Tentative Decision, signed on March 29, 2017, that John Egley’s behavior in handling the employment lawsuit constituted an “inherent conflict of interest” in violation of Rule 3-310(b) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct -- by failing to recognize his witness testimony as a possible defense to the lawsuit and by failing to explain the potential defense to the client. Justice King then concluded, in his Final Award dated June 22, 2017, that Mr. Egley’s behavior “fell below the standard of care” and resulted in an “inherent conflict between the two roles [litigator and witness].”
Despite these arbitration opinions issued by Justice King, Call & Jensen (through Wayne Call) continues to seek an additional $1.1 million in attorney fees, on top of just under $1 million in fees his firm already billed while losing the underlying trial. Justice King has now twice denied the additional $1.1 million in attorney fees sought by Call & Jensen, which resulted in the law firm filing a Petition in court to “Correct and Confirm Arbitration Award.” Thus, Wayne Call is now seeking through court intervention to obtain a massive payday (over $2 million in attorney fees in total) from his firm’s client whom Call & Jensen treated “below the standard of care” while operating under an “inherent conflict."