Charles Matthew Riffle

Chuck Riffle is a doofus that speaks loudly but carries a tiny stick. His knowledge of Probate Law brings into question his comprehensive capabilities. In court, he's a finger waving clown that's easy to dismiss. More often than not he run's out of a courtroom with with his tail between his l...egs. You've been warned...Don't be one of Chuck's chumps.

Charles Riffle has a good reputation and credentials. The best possible interpretation is that he has been living off of his own coat tails for too long. He was recommended to my mom as the "go-to" guy in probate matters. Well, I can see why other attorneys like him. He makes them rich, too. At... every possible turn, Rifle was the block to reaching compromise. 100s of thousands of dollars later, we finally got an attorney from outside of the area who pointed out among other things, that Riffle told one judge that a property had a lot of value, so it should be kept, and managed. (Creating fees for Riffle and friends). Less than six months later, he told another judge that the same property needed to be sold. More fees to Riffle and friends. It went on and on. Beside being dishonest, he is just simply heartless, including to the elderly people he is supposed to be "helping"

I used Charles Riffle for a divorce case to defend my community property rights which are ferociously guarded and protected by California law. To be fair I now see that he has wisely left family law practice because this man simply has no idea what he's doing in this arena. He lost my case to a claim... of a verbal prenuptial agreement which isn't even recognized in California law and specifically excluded. He's that bad. On the factual side, Charles Riffle decided to pursue a legal theory in my defense which I now know has absolutely no basis in written or case law. None. Zero. During the course of the trial, he was sternly reprimanded by the judge for an emotional outburst which I feel jeopardized my standing with the court. Three times he told me he was "99 percent" certain that we would win the case. When we lost due to his ineptitude, he demonstrated his depth of integrity by denying he ever said this. During the course of the trial, he never even pursued what the other side claimed, never giving me the chance to explain to the court a version of the facts which could be corroborated by unassailable documents. One time he tried to pass by me a $900 (approximate) bill for document copying at $0.75 per page. I think of this man as a world class idiot for all times. Of course I could be wrong in my interpretation of the objective facts mentioned above. But in this case, I seriously doubt it. You may want to remember this story when you consider hiring this guy.