Cyrus Tabari Cy Tabari Represented a Doctor who Butchered Me San Rafael CA

1.  Lawyers don't take cases against judges on contingency, in fact it is difficult to get someone to take a case against a judge at all, and this judge was the senior judge in Santa Clara County and had a lot of power.

2.  Calling the doctor by his last name is hardly serious disrespect.   But the doctor operating on 2 DOZEN WRONG PARTS, THE WRONG LEG, CARVING X'S INTO MY HIPS, REMOVING CHUNKS OF MY CALVES, REMOVING CHUNKS OF MY KNEES, CAUSING CRIPPING INJURIES TO MY KNEES CAUSING ME CONSTANT PAIN AND CAUSING ME TO FALL DOWN, OPERATING ON MY PUBIC AREA, ALL WITHOUT NEED OR CONSENT, NOW THAT IS DISRESPECTING MY BODY and a crime.   But the judge said NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT ALL THAT.  Do you get it now????

3.  My lawyer made a back door deal with the judge because it would mean less time and less money for him.

4.  The doctor had to get rid of the jury because no jury would have ruled in his favor with all the damage and the fact that it was battery - parts I did not consent to surgery on.  

5.  What Tabari did WAS unethical if he knew of what the doctor and judge conspired to do, and I don't know how he could not know.  

 One, if the judge was behaving as egregiously as you say he was, it would be a slam dunk appeal case and the lawyer would have agreed to do it on contingency. If the lawyer doesn't want to do something on contingency, that's a good indicator they think the chance of success is near zero. What was your evidence that the judge and defendant were friends? Two, acting disrespectfully towards the opposing party is disrespectful to the court and the legal process. That is guaranteed to annoy the judge, and annoying the judge is the last thing you want to do. Three, I am still confused by the attorney fees award. Usually that kind of thing only happens if the judge finds the lawsuit was frivolous and it's dismissed on a motion to strike or summary judgement. If that was the case, it would not have gotten to a jury in any case. Juries decide issues of fact, judges decide issues of law. If the case hinged on facts (rather than something like statute of limitations), I don't see why the lawyer would have agreed to waive the jury. Whatever the cost of the jury was I'm sure it was small compared to what he would have made if he had won the case. Anyway, without seeing a copy of the opinion it is impossible to tell what happened. But you are still barking up the wrong tree. The defense attorney's job is to do whatever it takes to defend his client. If it's not illegal or unethical, he is required to do it.

First of all, an ethical lawyer would not be a part of a case where the judge and doctor conspired to fix the trial.  I have evicence that they did this.  The judge expanded the scope of a release, acting as if he were the lawyer of the doctor instead of an independent arbiter.  He had no right to do this.  Secondly the doctor operated on more than a dozen wrong parts, parts I did not consent to surgery on, including the wrong leg!  This is battery, a crime.   But the judge said, "I don't think he did anything wrong".  In his ruling he didn't say a single word about the doctor operating on the wrong parts causing me crippling injuries and disfigurement.  Instead he chastised me for referring to the doctor by his last name instead of calling him Dr. ____.  So my lack of respect for the man who has butchered me is worse than the butchery itself?   And I paid the jury fee deposit, we were supposed to have a jury trial, but I found out later that the judge and my lawyer met before the trial and without my knowlege or consent agreed to a bench trial.  This was beneficial to my lawyer because it would be over sooner and he wouldn't have to pay the cost of a jury.  And this gave the judge total power so he could rule in favor of his friend.   I told the judge I didn't agree to a bench trial but he ignored this.  I tried to appeal but lawyers wanted $20K upfront.  The doctor and judge knew I would not be able to afford an appeal.  I filed a complaint with the Council on Judicial Performance but they wouldn't even investigate.  A lawyer told me they only investigate judges that THEY have a grievance with.   Same thing happened when I tried to get justice with my corrupt lawyer.  The whole system is more corrupt than you can imagine.  If you don't have money and you are up against rich corrupt people, you are screwed.  

Defending his client is literally the lawyer's job.  You are complaining that he did what he is required and being paid to do. 

Your only legitimate complaint might be against your own attorney.  The only reason a court would impose attorney fees for the opposing party is if your lawsuit was totally frivolous.  Your attorney should have advised you of that.  That might also be why there wasn't a jury trial -- the lawsuit might have been thrown out on summary judgement because there wasn't a genuine issue of material fact.

Also, if the judge was actually friends with the defendant in the case, you should have filed a motion to recuse and appealed it if it was denied.  Trash talking about the judge on social media isn't going to accomplish anything productive.