Jury decides finds attorney in Dr. Richard Grossman case guilty of malpractice

Says lawyer mishandled estate



After hearing three weeks of testimony that undue influence was involved in the rewriting of Grossman Burn Center founder Dr. Robert Grossman’s final trust papers, a jury in Ventura found the attorney who drafted the document engaged in malpractice.

Damages against Peter Wakeman will be calculated based on how much the plaintiffs in the case were awarded in an earlier probate settlement versus the value of Grossman’s estate upon his death in 2014 at the age of 81.

Wakeman was sued by Hidden Hills resident Rebecca Grossman, acting as a guardian for her college-age daughter and high-school-age son, along with the doctor’s eldest son, Jeffrey Grossman.

The plaintiffs claimed Wakeman mishandled the paperwork, allowing the doctor’s $18-million estate to go solely to his wife, Elizabeth Grossman, at the time of his death.

Wakeman’s attorneys argued the doctor changed his intentions, adding his fourth wife as primary beneficiary, because of familial strife and that Wakeman merely acted as the drafter of the documents.

Witnesses included the doctor’s son and onetime business partner, Dr. Peter Grossman. Peter’s wife, Rebecca Grossman, refused a defense subpoena to testify and instead the jury heard from her by way of a 2017 videotaped deposition in which she answered questions pertaining to the relationship her late father-in-law had with various relatives, including Elizabeth.

On Nov. 16, after only about three hours of deliberation, the 12-member jury came back with a verdict against Wakeman.

Elizabeth Grossman was targeted in an earlier lawsuit by the plaintiffs, and eventually settled in 2018 with each of the complainants receiving proceeds from the estate. Wakeman did not participate in that settlement, and the trial against him commenced anew after a pandemic-related delay.

The complaint against him included charges of aiding and abetting Elizabeth Grossman in financial elder abuse of the late doctor, as well as a claim for punitive damages against Wakeman. But the judge threw out those two claims, leaving the jury only to answer the malpractice question.

Wakeman maintained his innocence throughout the trial.

Follow Scott Steepleton on twitter @scottsteepleton.