adjustercom.com News

Now, lawyer Richard Widom after being fired in April of 2009, after a 30-year-career with “The Stockwell Firm” (Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl), which is a 60-year-old Workers’ Compensation defense firm statewide in California, not only seeks to collect his deferred compensation and his retirement from The Stockwell Firm through his civil action against them in Los Angeles Superior Court, but his suit also includes his demand for punitive damages. He alleges that Stockwell acted with malice against him not only by firing him, but by also hiring a private investigator to spy on him and dig up dirt on him; and, encouraging Lisa Kerner to file criminal charges against him.

Widom vigorously asserts that Stockwell supported Lisa Kerner so much in her reports to the Los Angeles Police Department, plus the Los Angeles City Attorney; and then by even supporting her in her civil tort case against him along with filing the family law restraining orders, and by claiming that Lisa Kerner and George Woolverton have an attorney-client relationship, that this puts Stockwell and Lisa Kerner “in privity”. This means they are so close together in their self-interests that they are like one-and-the-same. And this gave Widom the argument to claim “collateral estoppel”, which would prevent Kerner-Stockwell from re-litigating the same case against him. Thus, Widom claims Stockwell cannot cross-complain against him for assaulting and battering Lisa Kerner and thus putting Stockwell at risk. Widom’s argument is he has already been found innocent of those charges.

Widom won on this argument with the trial court.

Widom also alleges The Stockwell Firm bad-mouthed him to prospective clients, telling clients he was in the midst of being criminally charged and that he had beaten and abused his wife, fellow Stockwell attorney, Lisa Kerner. Widom specifically accuses George Woolverton of speaking disparagingly about him and with malice to existing, former, and prospective clients.

Widom alleges loss of income and loss of reputation at the hands of the Stockwell Firm; and in response, Stockwell alleges Widom diverted funds for his own use and either attempted or succeeded in recruiting other lawyers away from Stockwell to his new firm.

Richard Widom is now today affiliated with Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino in West Los Angeles. When he first was fired from Stockwell, he set up the Law Offices of Richard M. Widom, then joined it over a year later with Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino.

Widom filed motions seeking discovery of Stockwell’s financial condition, arguing that there was substantial probability and that it was highly likely he would prevail on punitive damages. There’s a civil code rule that no discovery of a defendant’s financial condition can be allowed for punitive damages unless there’s a high level of likelihood the plaintiff will prevail. This rule is in place to prevent plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases from having the power to get financial information from defendants and then motivating defendants to settle non-meritorious cases just so they can protect their financial information.

The discovery referee opined that Widom was very highly likely to prevail on his case for punitive damages, and the trial court adopted his opinion. So, the trial court accepted Widom’s motion for discovery of Stockwell’s finances. However the Court of Appeals overruled and struck down that decision.

The Court of Appeals said that just because Stockwell hired a private investigator and communicated with the LAPD and the City Attorney, they did not do so with malice. In good faith they believed that Widom beat Kerner. Not only that --Stockwell acted within their privilege in communicating with law enforcement and by hiring a private investigator to also communicate with law enforcement.

There’s a law that prevents parties from being sued for civil punitive damages for communicating to law enforcement. Without this law, persons could fear reporting to the police, therefore our system favors keeping the lines of communication open to the cops, and protecting informants from the threat of punitive damages. So, this is why the Appeals Court struck down the “high likelihood” that Widom would prevail on receiving punitive damages. Stockwell acted within their privilege by communicating with the police and having a private investigator communicate with the police.

There has been a huge debate over whether Lisa Kerner and George Woolverton have an attorney-client relationship in this case. The discovery referee very much disfavored The Stockwell Firm in believing that Kerner and Woolverton did not have an attorney-client relationship and could not claim the attorney-client privilege for purposes of withholding certain documents, and for Lisa not answering certain deposition questions. Basically, the discovery referee was of the opinion that Kerner was claiming in the 11th hour an attorney-client relationship with George Woolverton because she simply did not want to produce certain documents or answer certain questions posed by Richard Widom through discovery because such documents along with her answers to the questions would be to Widom’s advantage.

Henceforth, the trial court denied Kerner and Woolverton the attorney-client privilege and granted Widom’s motion to compel the production of documents, plus demanded Kerner answer at least 43 more questions through her deposition. The Appeals Court overturned this ruling and stated that there was sufficient evidence that Kerner and Woolverton had an attorney-client relationship.

George Woolverton in a flower shop

The problem was that for a long time Lisa Kerner and George Woolverton didn’t assert their attorney client relationship as privileged. George Woolverton is not Lisa Kerner’s attorney of record in any of her present or past cases opposing Richard Widom, and for over a year, going on two years, she and Woolverton never asserted the privilege.

The discovery referee who was clearly disposed against The Stockwell Firm and clearly disposed in favor of Richard Widom, gave the opinion that there were too many opportunities for Kerner and Woolverton to assert their privilege, and they did not assert it. But finally in July of 2011, George Woolverton wrote a declaration stating he had given Kerner substantial legal advice. The Appeals Court found no contradictions between Lisa Kerner’s and George Woolverton’s statements, and through their findings of Kerner-Woolverton’s consistencies, arrived at their ruling.

Lisa Kerner filed a declaration that Richard Widom had broken into her home on March 21, 2011 and had beaten her unconscious, and the discovery referee either didn’t know about it or just didn’t

The discovery referee was clearly disposed against The Stockwell Firm and clearly disposed in favor of Richard Widom...

consider it. Her declaration was later stricken from the record when Widom filed a motion in limine because he had been found “factually innocent” by the court in the Criminal Trial with the City Attorney.

Widom wanted evidence disallowed regarding the allegations of domestic violence based upon his argument that he had been found factually innocent. So, a motion in limine, which means “from the outset” allows or disallows evidence “from the beginnning” to either be submitted or disallowed. It’s used most often to shield a jury from information which could be unfairly prejudicial.

Widom had been twice declared not responsible for domestic violence. In the Criminal Case brought against him by the Los Angeles City Attorney, he had been declared “factually innocent” and then with Lisa’s application for a Permanent Restraining Order, the judge would not grant it because the judge did not believe Lisa Kerner was a credible witness.

Now, Widom wanted to suppress any evidence about domestic violence based upon the outcomes of these prior cases. So, the trial court granted his motion in limine, which would keep any such testimony or evidence out of this case, and as he also filed for collateral estoppel, which is a motion requesting not to be tried twice for the same charge, which is how the court system avoids

This is a lot of mind-bending, mind-boggling, legal bob-sledding. Most motions by Richard Widom were granted by the trial court...

trying a party over again for the same thing and promotes judicial economy, he won on that motion too by claiming and convincing the trial court that Kerner and the Stockwell Firm were in privity. In other words, they were in total cahoots.

This is a lot of mind-bending, mind-boggling, legal bob-sledding. Most motions by Richard Widom were granted by the trial court, and the condition of the case got to where by 2012 an enormous preponderance of issues weighed heavily in Widom’s favor.

Now, the Court of Appeals states that Kerner and the Stockwell Firm are not in privity. Their attorney-client relationship, well, the one with Kerner and Woolverton, does not put them in privity as having the same self-interest. Also, the Appeals Court says that the fact The Stockwell Firm hired a private investigator to spy on and dig up dirt on Widom does not put Stockwell and Kerner in privity either. So, that slays Widom’s argument about collateral estoppel.

Also, the Appeals Court states that Widom cannot use the statement that he was found factually innocent for purposes of collateral estoppel because if he was found factually innocent it’s as if he was never charged. He can say the charges never occurred and the case never happened, and in fact in three years the whole case will be erased from the record. Poof! Like a disappearing act by Harry Houdini.

So, if it never happened, then collateral estoppel using it becomes absurd. One can’t disqualify litigating against someone a second time based on a prior litigation, if that prior litigation has been

...the fact The Stockwell Firm hired a private investigator to spy on and dig up dirt on Widom does not put Stockwell and Kerner in privity either...

erased. So, the Appeals Court states the trail court erred.

These Appeals Court rulings were a huge win for Lisa Kerner and The Stockwell Firm. But as each ruling has a snowball effect, it remains to be seen if Richard Widom will petition the California Supreme Court for review. Regardless, the cat is out of the bag and this roller-coaster ride has likely left the litigants and even their observers breathless.

A call to the Information and Assistance clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, plus a look at the L.A. Superior Court website calendar, reveal that no new court date has yet been set for Richard Widom vs. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, Woolverton & Muehl.