1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone:            (310) 201-0010
Case Manager: Christie Woo
Email: christieteam@adrservices.com

  • Plaintiff alleged that he hired Defendant to represent him in opposing a post-trial motion for attorney’s fees and costs after he lost a trial against a mobile home developer for trespass and nuisance and after his cross-complaint for race discrimination under the FEHA was dismissed by the Court on a directed verdict. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant did not prepare a written opposition and did not appear at the hearing of the motion, and but for the negligence of Defendant,
  • Plaintiff would have prevailed. Defendant alleged that the Court of Appeals ruled that there were statutory grounds upon which a judge could find that attorney’s fees were warranted. There were additional allegations based upon the attorney-client contract, and additional defenses in mitigation of Defendant’s conduct.

  • Plaintiff alleged that Defendant attorney failed to carefully review and advise Plaintiff regarding her husband’s investment, which was at issue during the settlement of Plaintiff’s marital dissolution. Plaintiff alleged that due to the attorney’s negligence, she lost millions of dollars to which she was entitled.

  • Plaintiffs alleged they retained Defendant immigration attorney to apply for an adjustment in an immigrant petition for work visa status and that Defendant was non-responsive, forged their signature, and in other ways acted below the standard of care, causing the denial of the petition.

  • Plaintiff tenant retained attorney to represent him in an action for breach of contract, conversion, nuisance, negligence, abuse of process, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. When the court granted an anti-SLAPP motion, Plaintiff retained attorney to represent him on appeal and on cert to the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff alleged in this action that Defendant’s representation fell below the standard of care in opposing the anti-SLAPP, and that Defendant’s advice and counsel on appeal subjected Plaintiff to attorney fee judgments and attorney’s fees for the subsequent attorney retained to handled the subsequent case.

  • Business owner accused of sexual harassment in the workplace and other employment violations filed an action against his attorneys for professional negligence in advising him not to work with his insurance company and not to accept Cumis counsel, which led the insurance company to obtain a judgment from the court that the business owner breached his insurance policy by his failure to cooperate and therefore the insurance company had no duty to defend. The judgment of the court was affirmed on appeal. The business owner, having to defend against the employment claims without insurance defense coverage, therefore asserted counsel’s advice fell below the standard of care. Defendant attorneys disagreed based upon certain information they had regarding their former client’s business practices and potential criminal liability.

  • A child sustained a head injury when hit by an automobile traveling on a dark street. Mother alleged she hired an attorney who promised that in addition to settling with the driver, he would file a claim with the city for not properly lighting the street. The attorney failed to file a government claim. Once the mother found out that no claim had been filed, the government claim was time-barred and the attorney was deceased. The child, with mother as guardian ad litem, sued the attorney’s estate and the practice administrator for professional negligence. Defendants claimed, among other things, lack of causation by the city in the underlying case.

  • Legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action brought by the former manager of a country club against an attorney from whom he sought advice after the club offered him a demotion or, in the alternative, a severance package. When Plaintiff read derogatory and untrue statements made against him in a club newsletter, he sought the advice of the attorney to determine whether to revoke a severance agreement and sue for defamation. The malpractice suit alleged that the resulting advice and inaction of counsel fell below the standard of care and led to both the determination that there was no case against the country club as well as the club’s revocation of the severance package, causing the plaintiff damage.

  • Action against an attorney and a realtor and their corporations for fraud and malpractice brought by an elderly homeowner who alleged that the attorney and realtor claimed that they could get her a loan modification for a certain fee as well
    as funds necessary to process the modification. Plaintiff alleged that despite paying the amount requested, no loan modification was ever requested and that the attorney fell below the standard of care.

  • Action in which attorney sued his client for unpaid fees and client filed a cross-complaint for legal malpractice in advising the client to go to arbitration in the underlying action.


Representative Cases