An Attorney & His Client

A white-haired man shuffled into Los Angeles superior court. His pants cuffs spilled two inches over his shoes. A wide necktie flopped across his rumpled blue shirt, his collar tabs curled like potato chips. He was Arthur Garrett, 63, lawyer for the plaintiff--who also happened to be Arthur Garrett.

The defendant was the one corporate entity that many Americans would give their digit-dial Princesses to see haled into court: the telephone company. On behalf of Client Garrett, Attorney Garrett was suing the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. The specifics were a little vague, but they amounted to a charge of continued harassment over a period of four years. Attorney Garrett had only one witness--himself.

Service Trouble. His complaints dated back to 1958. For one thing, the company billed him for two trunk lines when he only wanted one. In 1961, when he made an abortive campaign for city attorney, most of his speeches were directed at the phone company, which, he charged, "gives us a pushing around." At that time, Garrett promised that if elected, he would see to it that the phone rates were reduced. But Garrett quit the campaign because he was getting no support.

But thereupon, he swore, the phone company got after him because he had said all those nasty things about it. He let his phone bills mount up for five months and got angry when the service was cut off. His phone was disconnected for a day, and then as often as twice a week. And when he complained, a disembodied company voice told him, "Your telephone is out of order. It's going to remain that way. We have our instructions concerning you."

To back his charges, Garrett presented no documents, no specific evidence, only himself on the stand. Telephone Company Defense Attorney Kenneth Wright could only argue from documents that Garrett had at certain times failed to pay his bills and that the company had promptly corrected service interruptions when they occurred. After seven hours of deliberation, the jury last week voted 10 to 2 for Garrett, awarded him a stunning $1,500,000 for punitive damages plus $1 for actual damages.

Those Units. The telephone company, said Wright afterward, "in effect was put in a position of disproving a negative." It naturally plans to appeal. Cried Garrett, raising his hands to the heavens, "Where can any of us find the burden of our proof? It's all buried somewhere in some tight steel vault." He explained darkly: "We never know what we're being charged for on those bills--all those message units. How do I know how many message units I've used? What is a message unit anyway? Who can evaluate the damages of each call missed or not made?"

But then there was that $1,500,000 judgment. "It's just one of those flukes in the practice of law," said Attorney Wright, a little bit dazed. Chuckled Attorney Garrett, as he strode off arm in arm with his client: "Well, you win a few, lose a few."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.