Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1142539

Complaint Review: Shartsis Friese LLP - San Francisco California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Joe S. — Los Angeles California
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Shartsis Friese LLP 1 Maritime Plaza # 18 San Francisco, California USA

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Shartsis Friese LLP Being sued for fraud:

(case #BC541392 filed April 2, 2014 in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1) FRAUD AND DECEIT

2) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

3) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

4) RESCISSION OF CONTRACT FOR FRAUD

5) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE-LEGAL MALPRACTICE

6) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

7) BREACH OF CONTRACT

8) BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS

9) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 (UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT)

 

Shartsis Friese Overbilling Of Client

Overbilling

Over the course of 1 8 months, Shartsis Friese billed PLAINTIFF for over $1.4 million in 16 attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' engaged in abusive billing practices and excessive overbilling, 1 7 including the following:

Shartsis Friese lawyers and their employees billed PLAINTIFF for more time than was actually worked; Defendants over--billed PLAINTIFF for work that was performed or should have been performed by legal assistants or paralegals.

Shartsis Friese billed PLAINTIFF for work performed by a partner attorney, which should have been performed by an associate attorney. D

Defendants (Shartsis Friese) engaged in unreasonable/excessive billing based on work product and results, including but not limited to the following:

• Shartsis Friese attorney David Hong billed $35,000 at $275/hour to review documents in the SEC action, but generated no written work product;

• Defendants billed over 55 hours in drafting and researching issues for a Demun-er in the Aletheia v. Proctor matter, where Defendant had already billed many hours for researching and drafting identical issues in the Ferguson matter.

• Defendants billed over $90,000 of attorney( fees related to the disqualification lawsuit against O'Melveny and Meyers, which it then voluntarily dismissed after the Judge in the Aletheia v. Proctor matter commented that the disqualification issue should have been properly raised as a disqualification motion in that matter.

Defendants engaged in unreasonable billing practices including block billing, bill padding, over-estimating time, having multiple attorneys bill for the same work (ie., duplication of effort) and for multiple meetings, and churning the file for fees.

Defendants inflated costs and expenses in their invoices to PLAINTIFF. In so doing, Defendants charged unreasonable rates for expenses.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD AND DECEIT [Against All Defendants]

PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained in 19 paragraph 1 through 3 7 of the Complaint as though fully set forth in this claim for relief.

At the time the parties entered into the purported engagement agreement for legal representation, Defendants represented to PLAINTIFF that the engagement was void as to PLAINTIFF individually and that Defendants would be representing PLAINTIFF in his capacity as an officer and director of ARMI.

Defendants represented to PLAINTIFF that all of PLAINTIFF's legal fees incun-ed in Defendants' representation of PLAINTIFF were the obligations of ARMI and further acknowledged their understanding and agreement that ARMI was responsible for all legal fees in matters relating to PLAINTIFF'S capacity as an ARMI officer and director.

 

Entire Lawsuit vs Shartsis Friese for damages can be referenced at the following: lasuperiorcourt.org (enter case #BC541392 filed in Stanley Mosk Courthouse)

 

 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/29/2014 03:42 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/shartsis-friese-llp/san-francisco-california-94111/shartsis-friese-llp-shartsis-friese-law-firm-shartsis-friese-review-san-francisco-calif-1142539. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
4Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#6 UPDATE Employee

Shartsis Friese LLP Prevails, Judgment Entered Against Roger Peikin For Unpaid Fees

AUTHOR: Anonymous - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, May 12, 2016

The original report has no merit and is misleading. Shartsis Friese LLP prevailed on all counts. As the judgment and arbitral decision indicate, Peikin's claim for fraud were completely meritless -- all work that Shartsis Friese LLP undertook on Peikin's behalf was warranted.

The arbitrator awarded Shartsis Friese LLP its fees, which were determined to be reasonable, and the carrying costs associated with Peikin's failure to make timely payment for services rendered.

The San Francisco Superior Court subsequently confirmed the arbitration and entered a judgment against Roger Peikin in the amount of $1,081,673.10. According to the satisfaction of judgment filed with the court, Peikin has finally paid his legal fees.

 

Case No. CPF-15-514561

JUDGMENT

CONFIRMING ARBITRATION

AWARD

Reservation No.: 03100502-10

JUDGMENT

Date: May 2, 2016

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 302

On May 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' petition to confirm the arbitration award of the Hon. Robert A. Baines (Ret.) of JAMS, dated October 22, 2015 (the"Award"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Award, having been confirmed by order of this Court, and no statement of decision having been requested by any party:

IT IS ADJUDGED Defendant Roger B. Peikin is liable to Plaintiffs Shartsis Friese, LLP and Robert Charles Friese in the amount of $1,081,673.10.

A full and accurate copy of the judgment and arbitration decision can be downloaded from the SF Superior Court website:  

http://ijsaccess.sftc.org:8080/ijsWeb/requester?APPNAME=WEB&PRGNAME=ValidateCaseNumberSHA1&ARGUMENTS=-A24cd98d45127ce605968ad715d114aade9e2f7e8,-ACPF15514561"

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report

Malfeasance Definition

AUTHOR: - ()

POSTED: Tuesday, December 01, 2015

From Wikipedia about Fraud and Malfeasance:

When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, there are three things the parties can do wrong:

    Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required - willfully or in neglect.
    Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
    Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party.

Example: A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering company doesn't show up, it's considered nonfeasance. If the catering company shows up but only provides drinks (and not the food, which was also paid for), it's considered misfeasance. If the catering company accepts a bribe from its client's competitor to undercook the meat, thereby giving those present food poisoning, it's considered malfeasance.

The rule of law laid down is that an action in contract (ex contractu) will lie for any of the three. However, an action in tort (ex delicto), will lie only in misfeasance or malfeasance. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly.

At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.

This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways; but in other cases the courts are astute to find evidence of carelessness in the discharge of public duties and on that basis to award damages to individuals who have suffered thereby.

Misfeasance is also used with reference to the conduct of directors and officers of joint-stock companies. The word malfeasance is sometimes used as equivalent to malpractice by a medical practitioner.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

Bay Area Legal Issues & Top Law Firms

AUTHOR: - ()

POSTED: Tuesday, April 21, 2015

"Idiots remind me of all those Sky is falling ravers who treat every rumor like another deadly disease outbreak in Africa. Nowhere. We do have a working courts system that does not keep your complaints isolated from justice. There is no information in this thread to suggest that the d*** complainers are telling the truth about anyone or anything.

Seems like just more internet gamesmanship skewing perceptions on Ripoff Report. With modern day business, there are always going to be disagreements but then one or both parties need show that there is a lack of good faith and that they are always right. Definitely studid reports like this are the wrong way to call attention and this is just more internet-stoked trashtalking just is "counterproductive", and also lacks basis in fact or reason."

HELLO!! Did you not read the legal cause included on all this. Not exactly rumoring, dear friend. San Francisco is a big place with many top law firms and the superior and municipal courts in San Francisco and the sourrounding Bay area counties of Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara have tons of quality law firms that feature top law graduates from nearby law schools such as Berkeley and Stanford. (Obviously, you're not one of them!)

(case #BC541392 filed April 2, 2014 in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1) FRAUD AND DECEIT

2) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

3) CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

4) RESCISSION OF CONTRACT FOR FRAUD

5) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE-LEGAL MALPRACTICE

6) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

7) BREACH OF CONTRACT

8) BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS

9) VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 (UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT)

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

What's with this nefarious rumor mongering

AUTHOR: Elance - ()

POSTED: Tuesday, October 21, 2014

You should have no concerns about stupid lawsuits at all. None. I promise. And tell all your facebook friends not listen to the hysterical voices online or believe everuthing they read the fear-provoking words online. All these people who say and write hysterical things are being very irresponsible.

Idiots remind me of all those Sky is falling ravers who treat every rumor like another deadly disease outbreak in Africa. Nowhere. We do have a working courts system that does not keep your complaints isolated from justice. There is no information in this thread to suggest that the d*** complainers are telling the truth about anyone or anything.

Seems like just more internet gamesmanship skewing perceptions on Ripoff Report. With modern day business, there are always going to be disagreements but then one or both parties need show that there is a lack of good faith and that they are always right. Definitely studid reports like this are the wrong way to call attention and this is just more internet-stoked trashtalking just is "counterproductive", and also lacks basis in fact or reason.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

They are the ones being sued

AUTHOR: SausalitoCharles - ()

POSTED: Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Try reading the report, genius. The Shartsis firm is the one being sued by a former client that claims fraud. I've been ripped off by bill padding lawyers myself so I had to chuckle when I read this:

 

Over the course of 1 8 months, Defendants billed PLAINTIFF for over $1.4 million in 16 attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' engaged in abusive billing practices and excessive overbilling, 1 7 including the following: 18 a. 19 20 b. 21 22 23 24 c. 25 26 27 28 Defendants and their employees billed PLAINTIFF for more time than was actually worked; Defendants over--billed PLAINTIFF for work that was performed or should have been performed by legal assistants or paralegals. Defendants billed PLAINTIFF for work performed by a partner attorney, which should have been performed by an associate attorney. Defendants engaged in unreasonable/excessive billing based on work product and results, including but not limited to the following: • Attorney David Hong billed $35,000 at $275/hour to review documents in the SEC action, but generated no written work product; Defendants engaged in unreasonable billing practices including block billing, bill padding, over-estimating time, having multiple attorneys bill for the same work (ie., duplication of effort) and for multiple meetings, and churning the file for fees. Defendants inflated costs and expenses in their invoices to PLAINTIFF. In so doing, Defendants charged unreasonable rates for expenses.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Shartsis Friese Sued for Fraud or Suing for Fraud?

AUTHOR: Raul - ()

POSTED: Saturday, May 03, 2014

Is Shartsis Friese suing someone for fraud (not unusual for a law firm) or are they being sued? Went to the California Superior Court website to enter the listed case number, couldn't see the pdf download- must be my computer or something. Shouldn't a lawfirm that is charged with fraud be sued for malpractice instead?

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now