Complaint Review: Shartsis Friese LLP
Shartsis Friese LLP Shartsis Friese Law Firm, Shartsis Friese Review San Francisco California
*UPDATE Employee: Shartsis Friese LLP Prevails, Judgment Entered Against Roger Peikin For Unpaid Fees
*Author of original report: Malfeasance Definition
*Author of original report: Bay Area Legal Issues & Top Law Firms
*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?
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
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
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: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here: