Mark Leon Vavreck

Mark Vavreck originally agreed to include certain claims in my lawsuit before I signed his retainer agreement – then after I signed the retainer agreement he stated that he would not include them. He would promise to call me to discuss very important matters – including filings that were due to th...e court in just days that I needed to review and/or sign – and would not call – this happened several times. He filed motions and papers with the court - with the wrong dates - and addressed to the wrong judge. Never could remember even the most basic of facts regarding my case. He didn’t depose the one and only witness for the opposing party because he “forgot” that the witness name, job title, and phone number were given to him by the opposing counsel – which was fatal. I could go on and on, but I will let the federal judge’s Final Order speak for itself. The federal district court judge eviscerates Mark Vavreck all throughout in his 19+ page Final Order with words/phrases like - “Serious failures” (plural), “Total failure”, “Rare lawyer”, “Equally troubling”, “His failure”, “Later failure”, “Substantial failures” (plural). Even at one point stating: “What was [Plaintiff’s] counsel [Mark Vavreck] thinking”? The federal district court judge’s Final Order is clear - and outlines Mark Vavreck’s several “serious failures”, “total failure” and “substantial failures” as a “rare lawyer” – stating: [Mark Vavreck]’s Failure to Abide by Civil Local Rules [Mark Vavreck] has not followed any of those rules. He [Mark Vavreck] barely remembered to file the statement of fact required of him as a movant for summary judgment under Civil L.R. 56(b)(1)(C). [Mark Vavreck] while failing to even acknowledge his own substantial failures in following the important rules governing summary judgment… [Mark Vavreck]’s failure to submit proposed findings of fact … And then, because that submission [by Mark Vavreck] was untimely… Equally troubling is [Mark Vavreck]’s later failure to file responses to [Defendant’s] proposed additional facts. [B]ut that is not an excuse for the total failure [of Mark Vavreck] to file responses to an opposing party’s statements of fact. Under either Civil L.R. 56(b)(2)(B) and Civil L.R. 56(b)(3)(B) [Mark Vavreck] had the obligation to respond to [Defendant’s] additional proposed facts If nothing else, [Mark Vavreck] should have filed responses to [Defendant’s] additional proposed findings Likewise, his [Mark Vavreck’s] failure to file responses makes it very difficult… Violation of the Civil Local Rules [by Mark Vavreck] —particularly when the violation involves submissions to the Court—are serious, because the violation seriously diminishes the abilities of the parties and the Court to understand the totality of the situation before it. Thus, the Court predominantly agrees with [Defendant]: it must deem [Defendant’s] additional proposed facts as admitted, as a result of [Mark Vavreck]’s failure to respond to them, and pursuant to Civil L.R. 56(b)(4). [Mark Vavreck] runs into a problem right off the bat: he seems to have stipulated away his standing to pursue this case. What was [Plaintiff]’s counsel [Mark Vavreck] thinking? Essentially, in stipulating to that fact, he stipulated that his client could not pursue this case. [M]ost likely because it is a rare lawyer [Mark Vavreck] who would stipulate on the record that his client did not suffer an injury-in-fact Thus, [Mark Vavreck]’s stipulation, alone, is likely reason enough for the court to dismiss this case for lack of standing. How interesting that [Mark Vavreck] fails… Everything that the federal district court judge stated that “obligated” him to find for the opposing party in his Final Order was a direct result of the “serious failures”, “total failure” and “substantial failures” as a “rare lawyer” of Mark Vavreck. Terrible, terrible, terrible lawyer!