James C Frisch

⭐ Zero Stars — Due Diligence Was Absent King & Frisch PC threatened eviction without performing even the most basic due diligence. The firm failed to review readily available deeds, title records, tax documents, or mortgage information before asserting claims about ownership and eviction rights. ... Their client misrepresented who owns the home, and the firm repeated those claims without verification. An individual with no ownership interest, no title, and no legal authority cannot evict an owner of a property, yet eviction was threatened anyway. Additionally, the firm attempted to evict a lawful tenant with a valid, enforceable lease, which has been reviewed and confirmed by independent legal counsel. This should have been immediately apparent had even minimal investigation been conducted before escalating the matter. Compounding this, their client has been harassing us for months, repeatedly asserting rights he simply does not have. Despite clear documentation disproving his claims, those assertions were advanced without verification, further fueling the harassment. This lack of investigation and reliance on false premises caused significant and unnecessary emotional distress, fear, and disruption to my life. The situation became so overwhelming that I was forced to leave Arizona temporarily and travel to Dallas simply to escape the ongoing harassment and stress. This entire ordeal was avoidable. A cursory review of the facts would have prevented the escalation, threats, and harm caused. Based on my experience, this firm’s approach was careless, unprofessional, and fell well below the standard expected of legal counsel. I would also hope that this firm conducts appropriate diligence regarding the litigation history and credibility of its client before advancing serious legal threats. A review of publicly available court records reflects a pattern of initiating unsupported or extraordinary legal actions, including lawsuits against federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Postal Service, as well as legal action against his own attorney, accompanied by demands that counsel be jailed. These matters were pursued without legal basis and dismissed. Such a history should reasonably prompt heightened scrutiny before repeating or amplifying a client’s allegations. Given the circumstances, a written apology acknowledging the lack of due diligence and the harm caused would be appropriate. As a State bar review