Jury Verdict Alert
  • Home
  • Recent Verdicts
  • Search Verdicts
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Report A Verdict
  • Contact

Print

Legal malpractice claimed in divorce settlement. Defense. San Diego County.

Summary

Plaintiff says he suffered over $2 million in damages due to attorney's negligence.

The Case

  • Case Name: Girgis v. Christenson et al.
  • Court and Case Number: San Diego County Superior Court / 37-2017-00024754-CU-PN-CTL
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, August 26, 2019
  • Date Action was Filed: Friday, July 07, 2017
  • Type of Case: Legal Malpractice
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Joel R. Wohlfeil
  • Plaintiffs:
    Hany M. Girgis
  • Defendants:
    Lesa Christenson
    Ashworth Blanchet Christenson, LLP
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: Defense.
  • Award as to each Defendant:

    Jury returned a verdict finding defendants were not negligent.

  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 9 days.
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 2 1/2 hours
  • Jury Polls: 12-0

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Joel Selik, San Marcos.

    Suzanne Mindlin, Cardiff by  the Sea.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP by Ian R. Friedman and Andrew A. Servais, San Diego.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    Plaintiff  sued his former lawyer and the firm Ashworth Blanchet Christenson, LLP for legal malpractice relating to the negotiation of a Marital Settlement Agreement in a $30+ million divorce.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    Plaintiff argued he was entitled to $2,053,000 as damages for defendant attorney’s alleged failure to negotiate a stock transfer as an equalizing payment in a divorce proceeding.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    No instruction was ever given to make a stock equalizing payment. Defendants did not cause plaintiff’s harm as he could not prove any better result. Plaintiff had suffered no damages.

Demands and Offers

  • Plaintiff §998 Demand: See additional notes.
  • Defendant §998 Offer: See additional notes.

Additional Notes

The 998 history:

  • 4/5/18 – Plaintiff 998 Demand for $899,999.99
  • 6/26/18 – Plaintiff 998 Demand for $999,999.99
  • 2/20/19 – Defendants 998 Offer of $90,001
  • 3/31/19 – Plaintiff 998 Demand for $649,999.99
Tweet
Print

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.

© Copyright 2025 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. juryverdictalert.com

Verdict Videos

Copyright © 2025 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions of Use | Site Map