Seyoum v. Salvado

1

YOSEPH SEYOUM v. CARLOS SALVADO, ET AL.

No. 1007-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 22, 2023

UNREPORTED ^[*]

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[**]

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 485861V

Wells C.J., Nazarian, Beachley, JJ.

OPINION

Nazarian, J Yoseph Seyoum filed a legal malpractice suit against his former attorney, Carlos Salvado, and Mr. Salvado's law firm alleging that they had mishandled Mr. Seyoum's protective order case. The malpractice case proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Salvado. Mr. Seyoum appeals and challenges three of the circuit court's evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Pre-trial Litigation.

On May 26, 2021, Mr. Seyoum filed a legal malpractice suit against Mr. Salvado and his law firm, Salvado, Salvado &Salvado, PC.^[1] He alleged that Mr. Salvado, in his capacity as Mr. Seyoum's attorney, mishandled his representation of Mr. Seyoum in a protective order proceeding that involved Mr. Seyoum's minor child and the child's mother, Mr. Seyoum's estranged wife. In preparation for trial in the malpractice case, the court issued a scheduling order that required the parties to identify expert witnesses by August 27, 2021. Although the scheduling order was revised several times, the deadline by which the parties were to designate their experts was not extended. Mr. Seyoum identified one expert witness by this date, Darin Rumer, whom he designated to testify about the standard of care in legal malpractice cases involving protective order proceedings.

On April 20, 2022-eight months after the court's deadline to designate expert witnesses-Mr. Seyoum filed a motion for leave to identify an additional expert witness. He argued that he should be permitted to designate an additional expert witness, despite his delay, because he had learned through discovery that he required "an expert to testify to the extensive damages caused by the posting of negative information about him on the internet." Mr. Salvado opposed the motion and argued that allowing Mr. Seyoum to designate an expert eight months after the deadline would "prejudice [Mr. Salvado] in [his] efforts to defend this matter and jeopardize the existing trial date," which was set for July 25, 2022. On May 4, 2022, the court denied Mr. Seyoum's motion. Mr. Seyoum filed a motion to reconsider that the court denied on June 17, 2022.

On June 13, 2022, Mr. Salvado filed two motions in limine: the first sought to exclude witnesses Mr. Seyoum sought to call to testify about his alleged reputational damages and the second sought to exclude a number of Mr. Seyoum's damages claims. Mr. Salvado's first motion alleged that in response to Mr. Salvado's interrogatories, Mr. Seyoum identified lay witnesses to provide information that would only be admissible at trial if those witnesses were designated as expert witnesses. Mr. Seyoum opposed this motion and argued that the information he sought to elicit from those individuals was not expert testimony.

Mr. Salvado's second motion in limine sought to preclude consideration of certain damages. Mr. Salvado argued that Mr. Seyoum could only prove damages to his reputation by presenting expert witnesses, but again had failed to designate any expert who could provide such testimony to support his claim. He also asserted that based on Mr. Seyoum's deposition testimony, Mr. Seyoum could not demonstrate lost income or psychological and emotional distress damages and should be excluded from claiming them during trial. Mr. Seyoum argued again that expert testimony wasn't required to support a claim for reputational damages and that Mr. Salvado had failed, as a matter of law, to explain why his reputational damages claims should be excluded. Therefore, Mr. Seyoum contended, the question of harm to his reputation must be resolved by a jury rather than on a motion in limine. On July 18, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part both of Mr. Salvado's motions. The court ruled that "[e]vidence of purported damages to [Mr. Seyoum]'s reputation will be precluded" because Mr. Seyoum was required to designate an expert witness to testify to these damages at trial and failed to do so. The court also granted the portion of Mr. Salvado's motion relating to evidence of psychological or emotional distress, but deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Seyoum could present evidence of lost income.

Mr. Seyoum also filed a motion in limine of his own to exclude evidence that one of his fact witnesses, Sylvia Adams, had been suspended from the practice of law in Maryland. On July 11, 2022, the court denied that motion.

B. The Trial.

A four-day jury trial began on July 25, 2022, and we'll discuss the portions relevant to this appeal.

During his direct examination, Mr. Seyoum testified that he participated in other litigation prior to the protective order hearing:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] You've been involved in other litigation haven't you?

[MR. SEYOUM:] Yes, sir. * * * [COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] You filed a lawsuit against [WAZE].

[MR. SEYOUM:] Yes, sir,

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] and [the] thrust of the suit was that they had stolen your technology.

[MR. SEYOUM:] Allegedly, yes.

On cross-examination, Mr. Seyoum also was questioned about litigation against Millennium Development, Inc. and a suit involving one of his prior business partners, Mussee Leakmariam:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] You also were in some litigation in the District of Columbia concerning a company Millennium?

[MR. SEYOUM:] Yes. * * *

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] There was some litigation . . . between Mr. Leakmariam, and . . . another individual in the company, right?

[MR. SEYOUM:] Yes, sir.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] And there were some allegations there that you had used company funds inappropriately to pay your personal expenses, right?

[MR. SEYOUM:] After, after I sued him, or we sued, he counter-sued us for that.

Mr. Seyoum's attorney did not object to any of the questions until counsel for Mr. Salvado offered the Superior Court filing in the case involving Mr. Leakmariam into evidence. At a bench conference, the court sustained Mr. Seyoum's objection and excluded the exhibit.

On the second day of trial, Ms. Adams testified as a fact witness for Mr. Seyoum. Mr. Seyoum intended to use Ms. Adams's testimony to demonstrate that Mr. Salvado didn't interview Ms. Adams or present her testimony during the protective order proceedings and committed malpractice in doing so. On direct examination, counsel for Mr. Seyoum questioned Ms. Adams about her suspension from practicing law in Maryland. Mr. Salvado's counsel objected to many of these questions and the court excluded them from the record. But the following portions were not objected to and came in:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM:] Well, was your suspension from the Bar as a result of that client's complaint?

[MS. ADAMS:] No.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM:] What was the cause of the suspension from the Bar? Just very, very briefly, please.

[MS. ADAMS:] I failed to file my income tax returns for three years.

Then, on cross-examination, counsel for Mr. Salvado indicated that he was going to offer the public disclosure of Ms. Adams's suspension from the Maryland Bar into evidence. Mr. Seyoum objected and a bench conference ensued:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: . . . Good afternoon, Ms. Adams.

[MS. ADAMS]: Hello.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: I'm not here to embarrass you, ma'am.

[MS. ADAMS]: Okay.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: But I'm going to ask you a couple of questions that may prove to be embarrassing. I don't do it for any reason other than it's part of my job. If I could have this marked as 2....

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM]: Your Honor, I'm just going to object to this because you didn't allow me to ask her questions about this.

THE COURT: All right, hold on, hold on. I don't know where we're going or what this is, so.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: May we approach?

(Bench conference follows:)

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: This is a print out from the Court of Appeals that I'm going to move as evidence.

THE COURT: Okay, and, I didn't allow you to ask what?

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM]: Well, I asked her to explain what happened that led up to this incident. And that's what [counsel for Mr. Salvado] objected to, and I wasn't allowed to.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: Sure, she said didn't file tax returns for three years. That's what she said.

THE COURT: Right.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: That was her answer.

THE COURT: All right.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM]: But then, I asked her why she didn't file her tax returns and what the circumstances surrounding that were.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: You asked her why.

THE COURT: I don't know that it matters. Does it?

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SEYOUM]: Well, I think it does. I think it's something that, you know, if [counsel for Mr. Salvado] is going to try to attack her credibility, she could have an opportunity to explain.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO]: This is a matter of public record hearing, Judge, of what has happened and what she consented to.

THE COURT: All right, well, if he gets into this, I might let you ask her something on, you know, on redirect, but I-yes.

After the bench conference, Mr. Salvado offered the public disclosure of Ms. Adams's bar suspension into evidence:

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] Ma'am, let me show you what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 2 and have you take a look at that.

[MS. ADAMS:] Yes.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] Do you recognize that, ma'am?

[MS. ADAMS:] Vaguely, yes.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] And it indicates that you've been indefinitely suspended on October 28th, 2021, correct?

[MS. ADAMS:] Yes.

[COUNSEL FOR MR. SALVADO:] And

...