Witness Implies Greene Was Unethical : Legal Expert Says Lawyer Didn’t Adequately Inform His Clients

Based on his own version of the facts, lawyer R. Browne Greene failed to deal ethically with his clients in turning down a $2-million settlement offer in a case he ultimately lost, an expert witness testified Tuesday.

Costa Mesa lawyer Garvin F. Shallenberger, a former president of the State Bar of California, appeared to provide the toughest testimony yet against Greene since jurors began hearing the case on March 11.

A Santa Ana woman and three Mexican nationals claim that Greene, of Los Angeles, did not tell them about any settlement offers at a six-week product liability trial against Ford Motor Co. in 1981. Three of the four were seriously burned and an 8-day-old baby killed when a Ford pickup truck ignited in a 1976 rollover accident.

Ford won the case after the $2-million offer, made just before the jury started deliberations, was rejected.

Hypothetical Cases

As an expert witness called by the plaintiffs, Shallenberger was allowed to give his opinions about how a lawyer should conduct himself in hypothetical situations posed by attorneys on both sides.

Asked if a hypothetical lawyer who took actions similar to those in Greene’s account would have discharged his ethical obligation to communicate an offer, Shallenberger responded “not completely.”

The stumbling block for Shallenberger was Greene’s contention that, in discussing the settlement offer with his clients, he told them the offer was not in a form they could accept because it was a lump-sum offer, not a separate offer for each plaintiff.

“The attorney was wrong to tell them the offer could not be accepted unless it was broken down,” Shallenberger said. He testified that plaintiffs could agree to accept a total amount and work out among themselves how much each party would get.

The issue is an important one to Greene’s attorney, Charles A. Lynberg of Los Angeles. In written arguments, Lynberg cited an appellate court decision stating that an offer in a case involving more than one plaintiff must be broken down so that each plaintiff knows what to expect.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Melvin M. Belli of San Francisco and his associate, Paul Monzione, claim the appellate case does not apply to this case. And Shallenberger, who said he read the case, testified that he considered it “irrelevant.”

Superior Court Judge Leonard Goldstein is expected to rule later on whether the jurors will be told to use that case in their deliberations.