William Morris Simpich Jr

Around July 20XX, I retained Mr. Simpich to represent me in a federal civil rights lawsuit, titled, XXXX v. YYYY in the US District Court for Northern California. I paid him an initial retainer of $XXXX and any potential subsequent recovery on a contingency-fee arrangement. Shortly after taking the c...ase over, in which I was originally self-represented, Mr. Simpich promised me that he would file a reply brief to a pendent motion for a protective order as well as an opposition to opposing counsel’s request for expenses. Mr. Simpich did not file any reply brief nor did he ever file an opposition to opposing counsel’s request for expenses. This was obviously a breach of his promise to me as well as a breach of his fiduciary duty. Fortunately, for me, the court’s ruling was favorable. Mr. Simpich never provided me with any explanation for his failure to file a responsive pleading in this matter. In December 20XX, there was a court-ordered mediation conference in the above-entitled case before Magistrate XXXX in San Francisco, CA. Mr. Simpich represented me. An oral agreement was consummated in open court with the terms of the settlement consisting of the defendant paying $XXXX to me. The defendant also insisted that I pay restitution to the State of California of approximately $XXXX. I agreed. About two weeks later, I discharged from parole in California. I learned subsequently from an acquaintance named Derek, that when I discharged from parole in early January 20XX, the defendant lost jurisdiction to take restitution from me. In other words, there could no longer be specific performance by the defendant on the original settlement agreement. This fact was even corroborated by an experienced parole attorney named, D. G., Esq. I informed Mr. Simpich of this information and carefully explained that it would indeed be illegal for the defendant to take restitution after I paroled. I implored Mr. Simpich to file a motion for modification of the settlement agreement with the federal court. I even discovered a published decision right on point that strongly buttressed my argument to Mr. Simpich. Moreover, Derek also contacted Mr. Simpich to further explicate how the defendant no longer retained jurisdiction nor had any statutory authority to collect restitution from me. Derek informed Mr. Simpich that a settlement agreement could not usurp statutory law. That is Black Letter Law. However, despite all of these compelling arguments, Mr. Simpich was unmoved, and strongly adamant that I had to sign the federal settlement agreement, which would have illegally allowed the defendant to collect restitution from me. Mr. Simpich soon became very angry and upset that I would not sign the settlement agreement based on my firm belief that the restitution clause of the agreement was illegal. In fact, I was shocked at Mr. Simpich’s behavior, which was extremely unprofessional. Mr. Simpich never respected the fact that as his client, I was the ultimate decision maker. Mr. Simpich threatened that he would walk out of my case if I did not sign the release. His strong-arm tactics were particularly unnerving. The duress I was under by Mr. Simpich was substantial. During the course of Mr. Simpich’s employment with me, he substituted himself in two related state tort actions. On September XX, 20XX, there were Case Management Conferences in both of these cases. Mr. Simpich failed to provide the required CMC Statements in both of these cases pursuant to California Rules of Court. In addition, on September XX, 20XX, without conferring with me and without seeking my prior authorization, Mr. Simpich illegally and unilaterally dismissed Mr. D. T., one of the defendants in my lawsuit. It is quite clear in California, that an attorney needs his/her client’s permission before dismissing any party to an action.