Los Angeles, CA
Criminal defense Lawyer at Los Angeles, CA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, White Collar Crime ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Structured settlement of $35,000 to plaintiffs.
Attorney-client fee dispute. Plaintiffs claimed $188,277.81 plus costs as unpaid attorneys' fees. Defendants alleged poor quality of work, overbilling, work performed without request or authorization ... . Case settled after mediation with a structured settlement of $35,000 to plaintiffs.
OUTCOME: Settlement of $145,000 to plaintiff
Plaintiff, an associate superintendent at Compton Unified, contended that the District wrongfully refused to renew his contract after the superintendent had promised to do so. Plaintiff argued that th ... e refusal was occasioned by his refusal to sell benefit tickets in support of school board president's political campaign for city council. Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants contended that job performance was the only reason for non-renewal, and that school board was unaware of his refusal to sell tickets for the school board president.
OUTCOME: Client not charged with a crime
The government charged the named defendant and several codefendants with participating in a fradulent telemarketing charity scam, and raising millions of dollars thereby. The principal defendants serv ... ed federal prison terms and paid multimillion-dollar fines. The government eventually filed no criminal charges against my client. He paid a small civil fine, and agreed not to re-enter the telemarketing business for a period of several years.
OUTCOME: Petition granted, case remanded to superior court
Petitioner, a ward of the CYA who was summarily transferred to the Department of Corrections for alleged CYA rules violations, petitioned court to overturn Youthful Offender Parole Board's action. Hel ... d, superior court should have applied indpeendent judgment standard of review, since placement in CYA (as opposed to Department of Corrections) is certainly a vested fundamental right under California law. Case remanded to superior court for proceedings consistent with opinion. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b120658.doc
OUTCOME: Court order monitoring wiretaps
This case involved an alleged cocaine-smuggling ring said to operate between the U.S. and British Columbia. In a pretrial hearing, we discovered that the LAPD operated a "wire room" where various wire ... taps (some illegal) were monitored, and that the DA's Office encouraged the monitoring officers to "hand off" information to other, uninvolved police officers. These latter would make the arrests, and would thus be able to testify truthfully that they were personally unaware of any wiretaps involving the suspects. The object of this ruse was that police wiretaps, and the existence of the "wire room," should go undiscovered and consequently unchallenged. This practice went on for years until our case uncovered it. The clients received a very favorable plea disposition as a result of this finding. The more general result was that the Los Angeles County Superior Court entered an order monitoring the police, the DA's Office and their "wire room" activities, and ordering the DA's Office to turn over information to ALL defendants who'd been wiretapped -- over 300 in all! When the prosecution STILL failed to turn over information as ordered, Judge Larry Fidler (later to gain fame as the judge in the Phil Spector case) ordered the DA's Office to answer in court.
OUTCOME: Conviction affirmed BUT jury instruction changed
Defendants had been convicted in a cocaine case U.S. district court in Anchorage, Alaska. On appeal, we argued that the 9th Circuit's prescribed jury instruction did not tell jurors that the element o ... f intent was a necessary part of the offense, the defendants had been convicted withoiut all necessary elements having been proved. (Lawyers call this a Sandstrom error.) The 9th Circuit held that, because the trial judge sort of cleaned things up with a supplementary explanation, "The instruction taken as a whole does not rise to the level of plain error." Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit immediately revised its program instruction to correct the Sandstrom error so the mistake wouldn't happen again.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
