• Report: #1142539

Complaint Review: Shartsis Friese LLP

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Tue, April 29, 2014
  • Updated: Tue, April 29, 2014

  • Reported By: Joe S. — Los Angeles California
Shartsis Friese LLP
1 Maritime Plaza # 18 San Francisco, California USA

Shartsis Friese LLP Shartsis Friese Law Firm, Shartsis Friese Review San Francisco California

*Consumer Comment: What's with this nefarious rumor mongering

*Consumer Comment: They are the ones being sued

*Consumer Comment: Shartsis Friese Sued for Fraud or Suing for Fraud?

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

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. [continued below]....

.....

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: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/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.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Shartsis Friese LLP

Search for additional reports

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

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 3Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

What's with this nefarious rumor mongering

AUTHOR: Elance - ()

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 - ()

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?

#3 Consumer Comment

Shartsis Friese Sued for Fraud or Suing for Fraud?

AUTHOR: Raul - ()

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

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory