Mark Warren Plank

In August of 1989 I received a judgment of $17,981.00 from the California State Labor Review Board, and later the judgment was upheld in an appeal, against a corporation for unpaid wages. After interviewing a few attorneys I settled on Mark Plank to help me collect the judgment. Through my own... research I discovered that my judgment could possibly be amended by adding the name of the president of the defendant corporation to the judgment in accordance with section 187 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The idea being that the corporation is the alter ego of the president of the corporation and that the corporate veil had been pierced. I also learned of a technicality. One of the conditions of CCP 187 is that I, as the plaintiff, must not have had prior knowledge of the defendant's piercing the corporate veil before the original court appearance—which I did. I later learned that the California State Labor Review Board should have included the president on the judgment from the start, but they did not. During my initial consultation with Plank, I raised the possibility of amending the judgment—and I raised my concern about that technicality, but Plank said "We're still in business." He seemed to feel that my case, regarding corporation being the alter ego of the president of the corporation, was strong and that had supremacy over the technicality. When Plank filed the papers he also sent me a copy of them and I found that some pages of an exhibit were missing. I also found errors in dates that he referred to an exhibit. I immediately alerted Plank to the errors, and he said “My copier machine sometimes misses a page, but all of the pages were served on the defendant.” Then once in court, Plank recognized the presiding commissioner and said to me "He [the commissioner] tries to give businesses a break, but we can stipulate that another commissioner hear the case." However, when the commissioner called my case, he asked if we stipulate that he should hear the case, and to my shock Plank said “Yes”. The next thing the commissioner said was that he "...had taken the case under submission and practically already decided for the defendant because of the plaintiff's prior knowledge of the defendant piercing the corporate veil." Both the commissioner and my opponent’s lawyer seemed as smooth as silk in there following remarks. However, Plank seemed nervous and shaken in his attempt to argue my case. When we were leaving the court Plank apologized to me and offered to continue working on the case for free. Some days later I received a "MEMORANDUM OF DECISION" stating that, “The court will conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not [the president of the corporation] has manipulated the corporate accounts, income, and expenses within the last three years to avoid payment of plaintiff's judgment.” Later Plank told to me that he would not be able to represent me in the second hearing as he was scheduled to take a cruise to Hawaii after which he would be involved in a lengthy case in Southern California—remember this is after Plank said that he would represent me for free to resolve the case. However, in a letter to me, Plank wrote, “I did not go on vacation to Hawaii in 1994.”, and “Also, the case in Los Angeles was settled and dismissed before I filed the motion in May 1994.” Plank also told me that a previous commissioner or attorney (I can't remember which) made a mistake on this case. The gist of it being that the court in the upcoming hearing might actually reduce the amount of the judgment. Also, at that time Plank seemed to suggest that I settle out of court with the defendant. This is something that I never intended to do. As I understand it, the defendant made an out of court offer and Plank suggested that I take it. This offer was over $8,000 less than I was entitled to collect by law. This plus Plank’s $3,000 fee meant that I was out for over $11,000. I felt that this case had turned into a disaster and, under those circumstances, my only option was to salvage