California State Bar - Chief Trial Counsel INTAKE AKA State Bar of California Jayne Kim refusal to discipline David D. Ribeiro Chief Trial Counsel Allows Retaliation Los Angeles California

Due to new information I've provided the case is now going forward as opposed to being sent to the 6-9 month hell of Audit and Review.

I'm very happy with the work done by Anita and feel she is doing a great job. She has been exceptional compared to another person I talked to regarding another inquiry. All mentions in this file regarding law and such have to do with the lawyer in charge and her oversight. I think anybody filing a complaint with the State Bar will be very happy to have Anita on their case, perhaps not so much with her supervisor.

I'm going to try to redact some of the page at top. A.K. working for the State Bar was very pleasant to deal with. The person who should know better is Lee Kern.

Rule 3-700(d)(1) clearly indicates the inclusion of "material that may be maintained on any computer base by the attorney"

LACBA agrees with my interpretation.

Upon reading the documents please note as follows. In a lawsuit against me by my former attorney he printed out a retainer agreement. It is not part of the file. Neither is my answer or emails I sent to him from others. Apparently, he went to court with nothing and never even wrote notes, as they aren't in the file.

The State Bar took his word for everything and did not afford me the chance for a rebuttal, so I make it here. The State Bar notified him that he needed to give me a file in writing. He later wrote me a letter stating I had to travel to his office and personally sign for it. which is over 1000 miles. That and reviews I wrote ended up in a lawsuit. Regardless, he and other attorenys seem impervious to the State Bar and its desire to kick out cases.

I've been happy with my communications with the person in charge of the case. However, in one instance there was a lack of understanding of the law and in others it seems there was trust in the deception involved with the attorney in question.

For those interested I have attached a page from action they have taken. I think it makes sense, unfortunately as it is so difficult for anyone to get a complaint completed "beyond a reasonable doubt" I doubt anybody will take all the measures and research I did to try to get justice to this case.

So, as of now I am undecided until I get a return from the State Bar involving an oversight.

The other possible thought occurred to me, given Jim's reaction, is he's looking into discipline matters for himself and trying to dissuade people from complaining to the State Bar.

Such an attorney with a response like his, my suspicion would be, will likely have quite a few complaints against them over time...

I'll keep this updated as how it goes. As of now I'm quite hopeful.

Re-reading I notice you said you'd do the same thing that he did.

O.K. the work he did previously where he botched the case he was paid $1500.

The $700 charge I never permitted, he got the card number from before somehow and just charged it. I contacted a Detective in Whittier about it. Thought since he let it slide not to have him arrested.

But, it is of KEEN interest to me, Jim, that I complaint about the OTCTC, State Bar and you read it...you are an attorney, and you wish to associate yourself with David Ribeiro and indicate you would do as he did, so you could get so much more money that way.

PLEASE illuminate us with your full name, Attorney Jim. Do you work for the OTCTC? What amazing ethics you have. One can deduce you are an attorney, and judging by how you found this link. . .JIM...hope your coworkers can read this and figure out who you are.

If anyone else can figure out who Jim is, that would be great.

I won't mention her name without permission.

But, I filed an additional complaint against Ribeiro but did not include that it be added in the previous one (which is now in Audit and Review...I gather to linger but will update how that goes)

She's been fantastic and quick. The previous person from what I gather, maybe read the entire complaint, but his response indicated did not...although, I've read elsewhere this may be a tactic once the complaint is destroyed.

The person I talked to on the phone about the file claimed she had called me numerous times although the only thing that day on my caller ID was "private call" once, and my phone blocks all private calls. However, the way my phone works this does not exclude her calling numerous times.

Talking to her was a huge headache, and from what I gather but can't prove she basically has a law degree from a third world country...but her name in specific came up in someone else complaining about the bar elsewhere and yet again this might be part of the draw.

I still think one needs to be careful about complaining. I never lied and filed it as an affidavit, but now I think at least there's a glimmer of hope and perhaps the best avenue is to file complaints (if more than one issue) every day and have it as seperate issues and inquiries until hopefully you get someone competent..then try to combine them all with that one person.

After reading more from the State Bar of California Information and what other attorneys said, besides the problem of lack of funds it appears the people involved that read the complaints aren't lawyers. Maybe they have a law degree from another country...or went to law school but didn't pass the bar, but my understanding is they are supervised by an attorney.

In my complaint I didn't cite specific laws or statutes. Just passed on the evidence.  Reading other letters from the State Bar to people it's of a similar boiler plate with a quote or two to indicate some of what was sent was read.

I'm accustomed to the attorney grievance commision of another State, which acts promptly by lawyers, who will call the attorney involved for their side and they often take action. Thus, attorneys are kept more in line and not left to run loose.

Juding from the letter, the State Bar has to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" to do much of anything. Which apparently may mean they'll do something after someoe has been convicted of a crime.

The letter also stated they don't get involving malpractice. So, attorneys can malpractice to their hearts content over and over again and never get disciplined.

Curious for a rebuttal on any of the above.

I did contact someone by phone who was helpful as far as learning progression as everything is still active. The initial response as well as the opinion of other attorneys leaves me to think it best to at least consider the possibility of a frivalous lawsuit from the attorney in retaliation or, most likely, dissapointment from a mostly boilerplate letter from someone that didn't read the hard work it takes for justice and oversight.

The California, in particular L.A. legal system, is reckless, out of control and costing the State to sink and clogging the courts. This money goes nowhere. Nothing is really created. SOME oversight would greatly help the situation. I think since its been getting so much worse with California, as I've read and is obvious Civilian Oversight of some form is desperately needed.

The part of th OCTC not going much of anything that bothers me the most has to do with my file.

I mailed them the file he claims in the complete file. Then, additonal parts I had that would be part of the file. I also indicated they could look up the file themselves online and fine more information.

I requested my complete file as it proves legal malpractice and I'd like the case he stipulated to against my wishes overturned.

The part about the file is objective. What he has is less than what is and should be. He made it as difficult as possible to get the file. The OCTC pretty much made the situation worse. He sent a letter that wasn't remotely true as to what I'd have to do to get the file back. Complained again. He files a lawsuit retaliating to that but bases it on something else.

Anyway, I had to hire a P.I. to pick up the file, photograph it, document it and send it so it can't be tampered with along with (separately) the envelope and other documentation due to my beleif he will invent evidence for the file. He has no issues destroying the file he'll have no issues forging documents to include in the file. That's why I wanted and said I'd pay for him to send the file to the OCTC and they could look at it before I would get it.

They seem to only do anything when there is a lot of publicity and the attorney is already convicted of a serious felony.

It would be great if the OCTC were disbanded and Califronia would issue civilian oversight. What California is doing isn't working and its costing large amounts of money in graft and allowing corrupt attorneys to run rampant and unfettered. This is why there are so many frivilous lawsuits in California, not just due to population, but due to proportion. Serious lack of oversight.

I'll upload more as issues progress. People should do web searches on David D Ribiero (and Ribeiro law Corporation) Law Corp and read the reviews. Read all he claims to specialize in and everything else. Pretty much the tip of the iceberg, but from here on out I'm just going to paste what I send to the OCTC to get ignored.

What he wrote is a lie. I never agreed to pay him $700.

He also did the opposite of what I asked him to. Why do you think the card agreed with me and gave me back the funds?

You can't buy something, dispute it and the card doesn't let the other side deal with it

You must be an attorney, you can read but you can't comprehend. The situation is much larger than that portrayed. Numbskull.

$700 in California is basically about 2 hours of billable work for an attorney and the Bar in any state allows an attorney to collect on any work performed - even if the client decides to back out of a case.  The worst part is your own documentation would probably show he worked more than 2 hours on the case.  If the attorney decided to, he could even get the $700 reinstated with Visa, and there's nothing you can do about that either.  But why should he when he can collect a lot more because of the statutory penalties associated with your actions.  I guess he decided to go after you for a whole lot more, and I have to tell you, I know I would under the same circumstances.  A Civilian Board would end up being a joke here in CA and would not change your situation because even the Civilian Board would ALLOW the attorney to collect on work performed. 

What you should have done is calm down and let the $700 slide - because if you had given any sort of rational thought, you would have realized that is the cheapest alternative.  Anything else would cost you not only more than the $700 paid, but a lot of time lost.  The BAR had nothing to do with the situation you're in.  You did this, just as the other attorneys tried to tell you, and the faster you accept that (just as the other lawyers are also trying to tell you...), the faster you can settle this.

If you want out, send a nice apology letter to the firm - with any luck, the lawsuit will be dropped.  Best of luck to you.