Richard Dennis Huffman, II Beguiling lawyer is cold, calculating, manipulative & brazenly unrepentant after his malpractice results in a 120 days custody San Diego California

After my considerable effort of bringing this matter to the attention of authorities and after an exhaustive investigation by myself and the California State Bar Association I am pleased to report action was taken in this case against Richard Dennis Huffman II.

On July 7, 2013 the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar Association took formal action (against Richard Dennis Huffman II) in an effort to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession more generally from the likes of Richard Dennis Huffman II. 

Richard Dennis Huffman II was charged with failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to communicate and failing to return my file by the California State Bar.

Facing overwhelming evidence of his guilt including documented emails, text messages and phone conversations, Richard Dennis Huffman II decided against facing trial in the California State Bar Court.

Richard Dennis Huffman II instead 'stipulated' (confessed) to two of the charges of failing to communicate (when he abandoned his client in custody) and failing to return his clients' file (after his client was released from jail).

Meanwhile, the client is now suing Richard Dennis Huffman's two former 'partners' who were previously associated with Richard Dennis Huffman AFTER Richard Dennis Huffman provided SIGNIFICANT and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that at least one partner, ISSA ABUAITA knowingly misrepresented his partner relationship with Richard Dennis Huffman to the client.  

ISSA ABUAITA earlier represented Richard Dennis Huffman II was at no time a partner; telling the client Richard Dennis Huffman had absonded with the business card and stationery Richard Dennis Huffman II had provided to the client which indicated ISSA ABUAITA was partnered with RICHARD DENNIS HUFFMAN II.  

In September of 2012, ISSA ABUAITA induced the client to sign a 'hold harmless' agreement in connection with this representation; a clear violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 3-300 Avoiding Interests Adverse to a Client

A member shall not enter into a business transaction with a client; or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client, unless each of the following requirements has been satisfied:

(A) The transaction or acquisition and its terms are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client; and

(B) The client is advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client's choice and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice; and

(C) The client thereafter consents in writing to the terms of the transaction or the terms of the acquisition.

Had the client KNOWN ISSA ABUAITA had actually in fact DIRECTED RICHARD DENNIS HUFFMAN II to use the company stationery (in January of 2012) thus PROVING RICHARD DENNIS HUFFMAN II had PERMISSION to use the "ISSA, CRUDO & HUFFMAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION" he would have NEVER signed such an agreement in the first place; thus in covering up the true nature of his relationship with Richard Dennis Huffman II. ISSA ABUAITA THEN chose to have the client sign an indemnification agreement he was actually making the situation substantially and significantly worse for himself and risking his ability to continue to practice law in the State of California forever.

The investigation is pending and trial is set for early next year. The client is seeking substantial damages against RICHARD DENNIS HUFFMAN II and his former partners including ISSA ABUAITA.