Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Franchisee's Attorney Disqualified for Paying a Fact Witness

In Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) 9115,492 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015), a former franchisee alleged that 7-Eleven unlawfully terminated its franchise. While preparing to file the case, Patel's counsel was contacted by a disgruntled employee in 7- Eleven's Asset Protection Department, Kurt McCord, who offered his services as a "Loss Prevention Consultant." Patel hired McCord. He drafted a document specifying how 7- Eleven's Asset Protection Department operated, a summary of proper interview techniques, and an analysis of 7-Eleven's loss prevention interview with Patel. From that document, Patel's counsel drafted a "Certification of Kurt McCord," which was later signed by McCord and filed in the case.

7-Eleven argued that Patel's counsel, Gerard Marks of Marks & Klein, LLP, improperly paid McCord for fact testimony and moved to disqualify him. The court agreed and granted 7-Eleven's motion. It found that Patel's counsel violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-310, which states that an attorney shall not "directly or indirectly pay . . . compensation to a witness contingent upon the content of the witness’s testimony.” The court rejected Patel’s argument that McCord was an expert witness. McCord did not have significant experience in the industry, his purported certifications were never explained, and the bulk of his testimony concerned 7-Eleven’s specific interactions with Patel, which was fact testimony and not expert testimony. The court also found that the payment was not acceptable compensation for “preparation time” because McCord was paid a flat fee. Even if McCord’s testimony were truthful, that would not be a defense to the rule violation. McCord indicated the sort of factual testimony he could provide, for a fee, and Patel’s counsel hired him to provide that testimony. That arrangement was deemed a quid pro quo payment for testimony that the ethical rules prohibit. Because it found that no lesser sanction would be effective, the court disqualified Patel’s counsel.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here

Topics

Archives

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors