L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Lawyer testifies he switched L.A. Dodgers ownership document [Updated]

Mccourts The lawyer who negotiated the now-disputed agreement between Frank and Jamie McCourt testified Tuesday he had switched a page that excluded Frank McCourt from sole ownership of the L.A. Dodgers to one that granted him sole control after the couple had signed the agreement.

The McCourts are in the midst of a divorce trial with ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers at stake.

"Did you think it was OK to switch an exhibit to a legal document after it had been signed and notarized?" asked David Boies, attorney for Jamie McCourt.

"In certain circumstances, yes," said Larry Silverstein.

Boies asked Silverstein how long he had practiced law.

Silverstein said he had done so for 33 years.

"In all of your experience," Boies asked, "have you ever known a situation in which a lawyer, after a document has been signed and notarized, has removed a schedule and substituted another without the express written permission of the parties to that agreement?"

Silverstein replied, "Express permission or implicit permission, no."

Silverstein said he had not notified Jamie McCourt of the switch.

[For the record at 1:40 p.m.: A previous version of this post stated incorrectly that Silverstein said he had notified her of the switch].

Boies asked Silverstein whether he believed he had an "absolute ethical obligation to tell your client what you had done."

"No, I did not," Silverstein said.

-- Bill Shaikin at L.A. Superior Court

Photos: Frank and Jamie McCourt. Credit: Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (37)

That lawyer should be handcuffed right on the stand and lead away like the common criminal he is. All past dealings should be examined and his property forfeited just like a drug dealer who gains from illegal activities. Then his legal clients should be looked at too, since he was doing their bidding, right Frank?

Following up earlier comment: Having looked around, other sources are reporting that Silverstein is testifying that he did NOT inform Jamie of the switch. Which makes sense with the story above, excpet for the part that says Silverstein said he did.

The E & O underwriter for this lawyer just bought the Dodgers, and has also just lost them to Jamie McCourt.

great news!!!! sounds like they will have to sell. Oscar De La Hoya u said last week on radio that u would buy the team if they had to sell, well heres ur chance Oscar dont fall asleep and buy this team.

Silverstein should be disbarred, then sued for malpractice and fraud! What a schmuck!

Good news for the software industry! Why you ask? Because in software, there is a way to undeniably sign a document, and to ensure it has not been altered called a digital signature. The most common is an MD-5 Hash, but there are others. And any of them would have caught this debacle in about 10 seconds.

Good news all around. One less lawyer (after he gets disbarred) and the Dodgers will have to be sold.

What is the difference between two lawyers in a BMW and a porcupine?

A porcupine has pricks on the outside.

I'm boycotting all dodger games and merchandise until these selfish, greedy boston fans sell the Dodgers to someone who cares and can spend money to win. Torre fled town, the fans are next.

Every Dodger fan should send Mr. Silverstein a thank you card and a montary contribution towards his impending malpractice lawsuit. My heart goes out to his soon-to-be ex-employer and their current malpractice carrier. On second thought, no it doesn't.....

Paging Mark Cuban.... paging Mark Cuban ... Mark Cuban, please come to the MLB sales office...

Yahoo sports reports the following exchange between Boies and Silverstein:

“Do you still think it was anything other than an ethical breach for you to switch this schedule that has been signed and notarized without telling your client Jamie McCourt?” Boies asked.

“The answer is no,” Silverstein said.

If you examine this statement, Silverstein's answer says 'no, it wasn't anything other than an ethical breach'. Which means it WAS an ethical breach. I thought lawyers were supposed to be masters of language, but it seems Silverstein doesn't know one.

 
« | 1 2

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: