Attorney Jeffrey Hancock Attorney At Law ripoff deadbeat incompetent attorney refused to answer calls failed to appear or file any responsive documents to corrupt Child Support and Custody litigation Santa Cruz California

I was a defendant on the other side of the aisle from Hancock, who was my ex-spouse's attorney.  This guy used every trick in the book to defame me and keep the divorce, child custody battle going on so he could collect his fees.  The rumors I heard about his reputation were: "Get Hancock if you want a hard-ball divorce, child custody attorney."

He violated my privacy by getting private hospital records (how he did that, I don't know) and submitting them to the court to prove that I was not fit to see my children. I was not allowed to see or speak to my children for over 2 years.  My oldest child was so abused and distraught with the brutal custody battle tactics that he employed, that he got her to over-dose on medication at age 13 to prove his point.

He had a server through papers into my front door when I answered it with false allegations of child abuse. Hancock is a snake, he is beyond reptilian.

He will stop at nothing to win his client's case, especially if he thinks he can extort a lot of money from them.  He will fabricate, manipulate, and contort the truth to make a myriad maze of legal complexities so he can keep you on his billable hour record book.

He even tried to get me to pay for his fees, and social service fees when my oldest was taken out of both homes, and then tracking me down in another state.  To this day, 2 of my children and 5 of my grandchildren have not spoken to or even know me because of his vicious lies and machinations. 

As far as I can tell, he is unethical and diabolical, and will go to any length to get money, and has no care whatsoever who is hurt, whether they are innocent children or not.

Not only that, he is disgustingly unhygienic.  He chews tobacco, and has disgusting brown teeth that he smiles demonically at you to scare you into submission when confronting you.  He is an utter monster.  How he is still in practice in the CaliforniaState legal system is truly amazing.  He has no legal skill or acumen whatsoever, but is a consummate bully, and a devious plotter.

Anyone considering a family lawyer should avoid Jefferey Hancock. I gave him a $3,500 retainer for my divorce and he did basically everything wrong that he possibly could have. He is very nice and responsive in the beginning until your retainer is used up and after that he will not return your phone calls. He even went so far as to deny receiving any of my calls.

It seems he feeds off vulnerable divorcees and their money because he blamed me for his incompetences. I finally fired him after he did not return my calls and then yelled at me telling me it was my responsibility to keep calling him. I received a bill for $10,000 in addition to the $3,500 retainer. I could have done a better job representing myself.

Santa Cruz is a very small town and it is easy for these corrupt lawyers to get away with treating their customers poorly because they play golf with the people who are supposed to regulate them. After their clients have gone through a divorce or child custody battle they don't have the energy or time to go after their cheating lawyers. For me, I never would have guessed that my lawyer would not do his job or even return calls.

I have a friend that has him as her lawyer and she has a similar horror story about Jeffery Hancock at 625 Water Street in Santa Cruz, California.

The State Bar accepted Jeffreys pleadings ex parte in violation of the rules of the state bar court."No pleadings shall be filed without proof of service signed with each document listed" I was not served his pleadings to the Bar. This process was sneaky, unethical, and favors an unethical lawyer by allowing unreliable pleadings without due process of law. It stinks. It reeks. The fact that the complaint does not show up on the Cal Bar site for Mr. Hancock, is the same situation as the phony better business bureau. That is why Rip Off Reports is here, and is vital to America.

The sole complaint is Mr. Hancock collecting fees for doing NOTHING for the client, in violation of State Bar Rule 3-110 A) is described below:

(He was terminated by Mr. Buskist after three months ( Dec 23, 2003) for zero output, and insisted on keeping and waisting fees with no results)

I am the original reporter and clarify the two key areas of incompetence neglected in the CalBar's review, and by Mr. Hancock in the underlying case:

A): My case was an illicit termination of parental rights in family court after my "Not Guilty-Jury Trial" plea to absurd child abuse charges in criminal court,(dismissed) which were used by a deadbeat, drug addict mother to evade B):$24,000 in arrears. CA [Ev Code 1370]

If Attorneys are not held up to protect clients by law, they will NOT be diligent.

This site is about integrity and holding business to its part of a bargian. Here the issue is a deceptive fee agreement by a lawyer which he claims excluded him from the clients most urgent pressing issues: custody, freedom, child support. Such irresponsible attorney fee documents should be outlawed under Cal. State Bar Ethics Code 3-110 "competence", in any child custody, abuse, or support case. The fee agreement itself is INCOMPETENT under the oath of an attorney Bus. & Prof, sec 6068(Cal.)

Mr. Hancock drafted a fee agreement excluding himself from the client's "ON POINT" key legal issues (above)and sought to act only as a abstract "consultant". The "one year" has passed, so the protest must go on. March 4 was rained out so a new bigger protest and nationwide press release is pending.

Psychotic false abuse accusers count on swamping the accused with criminal, family, and child support court dates. D.A's seeking fraudulent federal funds (Cal.Penal Code 999q) count on this malicious swamping effect to deplete legal resources of the accused as well. My POINT is that competence in all false child abuse cases must be a safety net for all the clients' rights, not just one narrow, self serving,inneffective element of the attorney's choosing. The element Mr. Hancock chose was moot, nada, zero, nothing. That equals the fee he deserves, period.

Mr Robert Frandeen was Mother's attorney who operated behind the scenes, with no service to me of any documents. That is a seperate issue and inclusion within the Jeff Hancock complaint was inadvertant due to my confusion with the format of these reports. James- Santa Cruz

I offer the following comments in response to the update:

1. Simply filing a complaint does not establish the validity. According to the California State Bar web site, this attorney has been in practice since 1971 with no disciplinary action taken against him. There is a one year statute of limitations for attorney negligence in California, so you take action as soon as possible.

2. If any attorney does not retain an unearned retainer or won't return your file, you should immediately contact the State Bar and retain another attorney. The California State Bar is usually very quick to respond in these situations.

3. If you hire a new attorney, it is usually your new attorney's responsibility to prepare the substitution of attorney and file it with the court after getting the necessary signatures.

4. Upon what facts do you base your assertion that the State Bar has not taken effective action? If your damages are limited to $5500, why not sue the attorney in small claims court?

5. Attorneys generally don't have "walk-in" clients, so your protest would be of dubious value.

6. I'm not going to call an attorney without more facts regarding the case.

7. At least you planned a peaceful protest.

The comments on this attorney committing a 3 federal offenses is retracted. Mr. Frandeen was reprimanded in case PA-0668 for ex parte contact with an official, but this was not known to the California State Bar. Concealing the whereabouts of a child support felon, perjury, and tampering the court calendar to obstruct child support proceedings may have been criminal offenses, however the complaint above is about the BARS handling of the complaint against Jeffrey H hancock of Santa Cruz County, CA. By failing to investigate the case, the BAR enables attorneys to operate in a sneaky cowardly back door fashion to frustrate honest hardworking citizens by repeated frivolous continuance requests excluding one party. This means we miss work and loose wages, or get fired, from sneaky lawyers and the Judges who let them get away with ethics violations like ex parte continuances.

The BAR's failure to prosecute gross ethics violations and incompetence of Jeffrey H Hancock is the issue, since it was his incompetence that enabled a deadbeatchild support felon to evade prosecution. JEFFREY H. HANCOCK has not yet paid a refund with collection costs, and still facing a picket on March 4 2005.
=============
=============
FACTS:

1. A STATE BAR Complaint was filed for Jeffrey H. Hancock Attorney at Law, for failing to appear, default and gross incompetence for client Jim Buskist in 2003.

2. The Complaint simply states the Attorney collected $2,500 for a retainer agreement, then failed to appear at any court dates, failed to file any documents, refused to answer the phone, and was utterly ineffective in collecting $24,000 in arrears owed from a child support fugitive who was in town for the first time in seven years. The California State Bar Ethics Code sections I swore under oath he intentionally violated are Sec. 2-100,3-100,3-700,4-200(b).

3. He failed to contact the court or file a substitution of attorney form, and was so severely incompetent that I would advise any family law, or false abuse clients to look elsewhere.

4. Since the State Bar failed to take effective action to return fees taken for no work product, a peaceful and lawful (1st and 14th amendment) picket will be been scheduled at the law office on MARCH 4TH 2005 at 11:00 AM 625 Water, Santa Cruz, CA, if Mr. Hancock refuses to refund the full $2,500 in retainer fees plus additional collection expenses, litigation costs of $3,000 for appeal costs resulting from his default and neglect.

5. PICKETS--- VOLUNTEERS---TV---REPORTERS---- (any questions) EMAIL ----jimthewire@sbcglobal.net---- for information, and to participate in a civil organized picket (in case he refuses to write a check for full damages and collections costs). The Picket will inform local citizens and protect the public from this attorney's incompetence, and possibly unite other clients he ripped off, as well as help collect for damages.

6. Call JEFFREY HANCOCK ATTY. yourself at (831) 458 4228! FAX a copy of this RIP-OFF REPORT to him at (831) 458-0925!

7. No weapons, flamables, or alcohol permitted during picket. We are excersising a well organized peaceful protest and must obey all laws and city codes to avoid police interference.