100FreeAttorneys.com | Phillips and Associates | Pacific Law Center

LAWYERS Lawyer referral service targeted State eyes allegations one law

USHOSTAGE1 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:39:00 GMT

LAWYERS Lawyer referral service targeted State eyes allegations one law
August 3, 1992
Hearst Newspapers Division
By Kym Fox Express-News Staff Writer

A lawyer referral service operating in San Antonio has come under scrutiny by state authorities amid allegations that one law firm is getting most of the business.

The law firm has disavowed any relationship with the referral service other than that of a subscriber.

The executive director of the three-lawyer firm, however, has been identified as the person who placed ads for the referral service.

South Texas Lawyers Referral Service has been running ads on television and in newspapers in San Antonio since the spring.

The ads offer "free help to locate and hire the appropriate attorney." It promotes a 24-hour telephone number for those looking for a lawyer to handle everything from divorce or personal injury to IRS problems and bail bonds.

"The lawyer you choose will make a difference" the newspaper ad reads.

But callers to the referral service are given little choice.

During the past week, San Antonio Express-News reporters called the referral service 14 times asking to be referred to lawyers who could handle everything from parrot smuggling charges in federal court to divorce and copyright laws. Of the 14 calls, 12 resulted in referrals to the law firm of Davis and Associates.

On two occasions when the name of a second lawyer was requested, the referral service operators said: "We only refer to Davis and Associates."

The referral service gave out another lawyer's name for immigration cases, and suggested noted personal injury lawyer Pat Maloney when asked about workers compensation cases.

Maloney said he has never heard of the referral service, and did not give permission for the use of his name.

"That would be a rather scurrilous misrepresentation," Maloney said, condemning the referral service.

Maloney also said his firm no longer does workers compensation cases because of changes in the law, nor do most other firms.

Authorities at the State Bar of Texas, the state agency that licenses and polices lawyers, are looking into the San Antonio referral service, but said there is no formal investigation of it.

"As far as an investigation, we're looking into it, but I can't comment on it any further," said Jim McCormack, general counsel for the state bar.

"We're aware of that service," McCormack said. "If there is any referral service not in compliance with the law, we're going to look at it."

McCormack said that, for now, his agency is concentrating on shutting down a similar operation in the Fort Worth area called Texas Lawyers Referral Service. In San Antonio

In San Antonio, lawyer Marvin Davis is the owner of Davis and Associates. Working with Davis at the firm are lawyers Frank Taylor and Robert A. Forester. Davis employs Larry Majors, who is not a lawyer, as executive director of the firm.

Davis said his firm subscribes to the referral service but is not otherwise connected. Davis said he does not know who owns or runs the referral service.

"We're not affiliated, we're a member," he said.

Majors also denied knowing who owns or runs the referral service. An advertising representative said, however, that Majors was the one who placed ads for the service earlier this year and that the ad orders were picked up at the offices of Davis and Associates.

Davis said he was unaware that his was the only firm offered for referral in most instances.

Davis suggested the referral service surely would not send clients seeking help with traffic tickets or copyright law to his firm because he does not handle such cases.

When contacted about such cases, however, the referral service again suggested Davis and Associates.

Davis said he was perplexed.

"Somebody ought to straighten them out, and I will take what steps I can," he said.

The law firm may drop the use of the referral operation soon anyway because it is generating too much business, Majors said.

"We are probably going to pull out after this month," Majors said. "It's too time consuming to talk to all the clients."

Majors went on to speculate that the loss of the Davis and Associates business could force the referral service out of business.

"It's probably going to drive them out of San Antonio," he said.

Records at the Secretary of State's office in Austin show the referral service was incorporated April 6 by Vern Brand, with Edith Brand of Arlington as a registered agent.

Repeated requests to speak with a manager or owner of the referral service were not answered. Referrals detailed

At the San Antonio Bar Association, Executive Director Jimmy Allison said his office has received complaints about South Texas Lawyers Referral Service.

Allison said he could not discuss the specifics of the complaints, but said the bar association also has placed calls to the referral service and been referred almost exclusively to Davis and Associates.

"In the calls, everyone has been referred to them," Allison said. "There were 10 or 12, we called for family law, for criminal, securities law, environmental law we covered the gamut, probate law."

The Vernon Civil Statutes contain the law governing lawyer referral services. They must be non-profit and meet a number of criteria. A provision of the law limits to $20 the fee that a lawyer can charge for the first 30-minute consultation for a client referred through such a service.

The San Antonio Bar Association runs its own referral service, one that is sanctioned by the State Bar of Texas. It carries hundreds of lawyers, who pay $100 each to be listed in their area of expertise, Allison said.

"If you run a referral service, it's got to be a public service," Allison said. "We lose money off ours."

_______________________

Comment:

100FreeAttorneys.com

Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Newsvine Reddit Technorati

Pacific Law Center — High-profile law firm faces complaints, lawsuits

USHOSTAGE1 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:47:00 GMT

High-profile law firm faces complaints, lawsuits

Former lawyers, clients allege unethical activity

By Greg Moran
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
signonsandiego.com
November 25, 2007

With its highly visible, nonstop advertising, the four-year-old Pacific Law Center in La Jolla has made itself one of San Diego's best-known law firms.

By the firm's estimate, it has represented 10,000 clients in drunken-driving and other criminal cases, bankruptcy, and personal injury lawsuits since opening here in 2003.

The advertising campaign promises aggressive representation and “little or no money down” and features testimonials for the center and its lawyers.

But in recent months, that picture has been clouded by lawsuits, a judge's ruling and action by the Better Business Bureau.

Former clients say it was difficult to get enough time with an attorney. Some say they were given unrealistic assessments about their cases.

Lawyers formerly employed by the firm have alleged in lawsuits and in sworn statements that Pacific Law Center uses unethical practices, such as allowing unlicensed clerks to sign up clients and give out legal advice. Two attorneys sued, claiming that they were fired after objecting to that.

Lawsuits filed by former Pacific Law Center attorneys depict a business where lawyers have caseloads so large that it is difficult for them to provide the kind of representation the firm advertises. Instead, they say, the emphasis is on settling cases as quickly as possible.

The Better Business Bureau, a business ethics and consumer protection agency, downgraded its rating of the firm from satisfactory to neutral after fielding 38 complaints over the past three years.

A judge ruled in June that the firm appeared to be “gouging” local taxpayers by seeking public funds to hire experts in two cases for which the firm already had collected thousands of dollars in fees from the clients.

Senior attorneys for the firm defend their practices and reject the various allegations. They insist that their caseloads are manageable and that they have time and resources to give clients personalized attention.

Robert Arentz, the managing partner, said that clerks act as fact gatherers and that no final agreement is ever signed without a lawyer first being brought in to talk to the clients. Arentz said all clients are told that the people they first speak to are not lawyers.

“We have a lot of attorneys and a lot of clients,” Arentz said. “It's easy to find individuals who have individual complaints about their individual situation.

“Overall, the majority of our clients are extremely happy with their representation.”

Arentz spoke from the Phoenix office of the law firm Phillips & Associates, which is affiliated with Pacific Law Center, where he often works.

Jeffrey Phillips, an attorney with the Phoenix firm that bears his name, is listed on the articles of incorporation for Pacific Law Center filed with the California secretary of state. Phillips is not licensed to practice law in California.

Arizona state bar records show that Phillips was censured in September 2002 and placed on two years' probation because he “failed to adequately supervise subordinate attorneys and non-lawyer specialists.”

The records say non-lawyers who first met with prospective clients failed to say they were not lawyers and did not adequately describe the firm's “little or no money down” payment plan.

Phillips completed his probation in January 2005. Complaints of aggressive intake clerks and hard-sell tactics are now being made against Pacific Law Center.

Phillips said potential clients are told repeatedly that the intake clerks are not lawyers, but assistants.

“We don't believe there is any way any of our people are doing anything wrong here,” Phillips said during a recent interview.

Assistants faulted

Court documents, as well as interviews with nearly a dozen lawyers who left the firm but did not sue, describe tactics by “legal assistants” who are not lawyers, who raise clients' expectations about what can be accomplished to get them to hire the firm.

“There were a significant number of clients who didn't get what they thought they bought,” said Charles Luckman, who worked as a criminal defense lawyer there from March 2004 to August 2006. “The best analogy I can give you is it was a law firm run like a used-car dealership.”

Often, according to court records and interviews with former lawyers with the firm, clients became angry when told that their cases were likely to turn out differently than what they were told when they signed up.

“I had to spend my first conversation with clients backpedaling like crazy from what the intake clerks said,” recalled one lawyer who wanted to remain anonymous because he feared retaliation from the firm.

Arentz declined to comment on the lawsuits or the specific allegations in them.

Luckman was one of three lawyers who sued after being fired last year. He reached a quick settlement with the firm, as did the other two lawyers.

He spoke to The San Diego Union-Tribune after the suit was filed but before the settlement, which contained a confidentiality clause, was reached.

In December 2005, Luckman wrote a memo to his superiors that the intake clerks were giving out “unlicensed, unqualified and erroneous legal advice” to clients, according to his lawsuit.

One client was told by a clerk that Luckman was a former judge, which was not true. Luckman said he handled 50 to 80 cases at a time, representing all the firm's East County clients.

In August 2006, after raising more complaints about the firm's practices, Luckman was fired.

Attorney Colin Cossio filed suit in September 2006, alleging he was fired after making numerous complaints about the business practices of the firm and saying he would complain to the State Bar of California.

Cossio said his caseload was enormous.

“When you have 800 files, how can you give each client the attention they deserve?” Cossio said in an interview before he settled his case.

His lawsuit said that non-lawyers routinely dispensed legal advice at the firm, in violation of bar rules and state law.

The complaints detailed by Cossio and Luckman were strongly rebutted by lawyers who now work at the firm. Ten lawyers sent unsolicited e-mails to the Union-Tribune, all saying that their caseloads were not overwhelming and that they had the resources and time to represent their clients well.

Michael Stuart, a lawyer handling criminal cases in El Cajon, said he had 55 active cases and that was manageable. Stuart wrote that he was “proud to be part of an organization that prides itself on ensuring the constitutional rights of its clients through excellent legal representation.”

Most of the letters lauded Alan Spears, named the head of the firm's criminal division in 2007. Spears' name has been in the news lately because he is the lawyer for Seth Craven, one of five men charged with murder in the death of a La Jolla surfer in the “Bird Rock Bandits” case.

Spears, who joined the firm this year, defended his lawyers.

“Do I think I have experienced and aggressive lawyers who vigorously defend people?” Spears said. “If that is the question, the answer is an unequivocal yes.”

In a later e-mail he said it was “absurd” to say his lawyers are overworked.

Judge criticizes lawyers

How the firm bills for services is another area of contention.

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser criticized the center in June for seeking public funds for indigent defendants in two cases in which the clients already had paid the firm for representation.

In one case, the defendant had paid the firm $12,000 of a $35,590 bill for a sex crimes case in which he pleaded guilty relatively quickly.

In another case, the firm charged $25,590 to represent a man who, after pleading guilty, changed his mind and wanted to withdraw his plea. The man had paid $19,500 of the $25,590 bill in advance.

In both cases, the firm wanted to hire psychological experts to examine their clients – and asked that they be paid from taxpayer funds administered by the court.

Fraser reasoned that some of the retainer fee could be used to pay the experts and rejected the request. It's important that “the public treasury is protected from greedy attorneys,” he wrote.

It is not only former lawyers and a judge with complaints against the firm.

The San Diego Better Business Bureau gives the firm a neutral rating, rather than the more common “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” rating. The reason: the large number of complaints consumers have lodged with the BBB.

Most of those complaints concern “service issues,” defined as delays in providing services, inferior quality of service, or not providing a promised service.

“We saw a pattern that causes concern,” said BBB President and CEO Sheryl Bilbrey. “They weren't bad enough to lose membership, but they are not good enough to get a satisfactory rating.”

Several former clients of the firm contacted for this story were bitter about their experiences.

One of those complaining to the Better Business Bureau was Genevieve Ruggles, 71, of Rancho Bernardo, who paid the firm $11,330 to represent her adult son in a drunken-driving case in Ventura County. When her son rejected Pacific Law Center's representation, it took Ruggles nearly six months to get her money refunded. She said that at her first visit to the firm to discuss the case she was immediately pressured to sign up.

Another former client paid the firm $5,500 to represent her on a drunken-driving charge. She said she and her husband spoke to “an aggressive kind of sales guy” when they went to the firm's La Jolla office, who told her the charges easily could be reduced. She said the representative later warned her she could spend 10 days in jail.

Neither turned out to be correct.

The woman, who wanted to remain anonymous because she did not want her arrest widely known in the industry she works in, eventually fired Pacific Law Center and settled the case with a new lawyer.

“They just really pressured us,” she said of the firm's sales tactics.

Arentz and Phillips both said they have worked with the Better Business Bureau and the clients to resolve the complaints. Moreover, Arentz said in a statement, considering the 10,000 clients the firm has represented since opening, the number of complaints to the BBB represents one out of every few hundred clients.

Marsha Hall, a former client who lives in Imperial County, did not complain to the BBB but sued the firm in July, claiming malpractice, fraud and false advertising. The lawsuit contends that the firm botched her case by missing the deadline to file a claim against Pioneer Memorial Hospital in El Centro – a necessary and routine step when suing a public agency.

Instead of admitting the error, the suit said, lawyers persuaded Hall to drop the case after referring her to experts who said she had no chance of winning.

Hall said two members of Pacific Law Center, Michael Clarke and John Schill, told her that her case had no merit – but did not tell her the firm failed to file a government claim on time.

John Schill was identified as the executive director of the firm on the BBB Web site file in May, but he no longer is listed there. He is licensed to practice law in Arizona, but not California.

Clarke has a discipline record from the State Bar of Arizona. He was suspended for six months in 2002 for misusing client funds. He was reinstated in September 2002.

Hall's malpractice lawsuit alleges that it was illegal to allow Schill to work on Hall's case in any way, because he is not a member of the State Bar of California. The suit also contends that Clarke's wife was one of the experts who told Hall the case had no merit.

The firm has denied Hall's allegations and insists it does quality work for clients.

“We have dozens of excellent lawyers, and we are proud of achieving client satisfaction and good results,” Arentz said in a statement.

Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center

USHOSTAGE1 — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:48:00 GMT

Law firm immersed in more hot water

By Greg Moran
signonsandiego.com
April 6, 2008

In the past few weeks, local airwaves have been filled with a remodeled advertising campaign featuring well-known San Diego lawyer Kerry Steigerwalt promoting the merger of his practice with Pacific Law Center.

But even with the new face, problems that have dogged the La Jolla-based law center for several years – complaints from clients, allegations of unethical activity by former lawyers – continue.

Clients unhappy with the firm have sued, as has a former attorney alleging that the law firm engages in illegal business practices and that the sale to Steigerwalt was a fraud.

One case has quietly become the talk of the downtown courthouse, with allegations of poor legal work by the law firm and a sexual relationship.

Antoine Mcelroy, 19, pleaded guilty in December to an attempted murder charge, admitting that he used a firearm and belonged to a street gang. His family had paid Pacific Law Center $31,000 to represent him.

But Mcelroy now says he was coerced into taking the plea agreement, and his new defense lawyer, Thomas Matthews, is trying to reverse it.

In court papers filed to reverse the plea, Mcelroy's 21-year-old sister said she had a sexual relationship for several months last year with Alan E. Spears, the bearded, baritone-voiced lawyer who appeared in many of the firm's commercials.

Mcelroy's sister also said Spears gave her thousands of dollars in cash and bought a 1997 BMW for her. The court papers include financing documents signed by Spears and the woman, and the vehicle registration showing Spears as a co-registrant on the car.

Hearing on guilty plea

A hearing on withdrawing the guilty plea is scheduled for Thursday. Spears, who did not negotiate the plea agreement or work on the case, denied that he had any sexual relationship with the woman, Patrice Smalls. Spears said he did help her purchase the vehicle.

But Matthews said the relationship with Mcelroy's sister “taints” the entire case, even if another Pacific Law Center attorney handled the plea. “Their conduct, both professionally and ethically, in this case is reprehensible,” Matthews said.

He argues that Mcelroy did not understand the street gang charge and balked at admitting to it.

“No, no. I didn't do it for the gang,” Mcelroy said, according to a transcript of the Dec. 3 hearing in which he pleaded guilty.

Matthews said that Arthur Katz, the Pacific Law Center lawyer who worked on the case, then stepped in.

“It's my understanding that there had been homicides between the two gangs and that my client did it in retaliation for a gang homicide . . . ” Katz said, according to the transcript.

Mcelroy then admitted to the gang charge. But Matthews contends Katz's statement was improper and he essentially admitted his client's guilt. Mcelroy did not exercise “free judgment,” Matthews said, and that – coupled with what he contends was poor legal work and the relationship with Spears and the sister – created an overall coercive environment that should nullify the guilty plea.

Katz has since left the firm. Reached last week, Katz said he would give his response to the allegations under oath when he testifies at the hearing. Katz said he had no knowledge of any relationship Spears may have had with Mcelroy's sister.

Spears said he believes there was no coercion and Katz properly counseled Mcelroy. He said the issue of whether or not he had a relationship with Mcelroy's sister has nothing to do with the legal question of whether the plea was voluntary and proper.

On Thursday, Steigerwalt fired Spears because of the allegations. “His decision-making does not exemplify the type of lawyer I want working for my law firm,” Steigerwalt said.

'Taking care of business'

Steigerwalt purchased 51 percent of the firm last month. He is the majority partner, with Phoenix lawyer Robert Arentz – the former managing partner – having a 49 percent stake.

Since then, Steigerwalt said, he has jettisoned some lawyers, brought on others, refunded some client payments and settled a lawsuit from an angry former client.

Problems, Steigerwalt said, stem from the “old” Pacific Law Center, and he is instituting new measures to improve the law firm. “I'm taking care of business and trying to do the right thing here,” he said.

The Mcelroy matter is one of several issues that the new Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center faces.

In February, Carl Hancock, a lawyer who worked at the firm for about 10 months, filed a lawsuit alleging that the firm engages in unethical and illegal conduct. Hancock alleges that three nonlawyers – Larry Majors, his son Austin Majors and Jeffrey Phillips, an Arizona lawyer not licensed in California – control the business. Under state law, nonlawyers can't be officers or shareholders of a law firm, Hancock said.

“It's not a legal business model,” said Hancock, who left the firm before Steigerwalt took over. Hancock's lawsuit said his complaints and concerns over the firm's excessive fees and hard-sell sales tactics by nonlawyers drove him out.

Similar accusations have been raised in other suits from former lawyers over the past two years. Those suits were settled out of court before trial.

Hancock also alleges that the sale to Steigerwalt was a “sham sales transaction” to shield the owners from any damages he would win, and Hancock wants a court to cancel the sale.

But Steigerwalt said Hancock's allegations were “ludicrous and outlandish.” He said that after Hancock left and before Steigerwalt took over, Hancock asked him several times for his job back.

Steigerwalt said that Larry Majors “was never involved” in the business and that Jeffrey Phillips has no role in the criminal-defense side of the firm. As part of the deal, Steigerwalt's class-action practice from his old law firm was transferred to Arentz's Arizona firm, where Phillips is also a partner.

Steigerwalt said he was aware of the firm's problems and has been working to fix them. “The problem attorneys are no longer with the firm,” he said. “It was a somewhat disheveled firm, and it needed skilled criminal-law practitioners. It needed the right supervision and the right lawyers.”

Steigerwalt said he has set up a new client-relations department to handle complaints quickly; has a legal ethics lawyer; and has required lawyers to have mandatory professional training each week on legal issues.

Lawsuits and complaints

Still, other lawsuits loom, including one from the family of the law firm's highest-profile client, Seth Cravens. Prosecutors contend that Cravens is one of the Bird Rock Bandits, and he faces murder charges in connection with the death of surfer Emery Kaunaui Jr. in May 2007.

Cravens' family hired Pacific Law Center for $175,000 but dropped the firm in January. Cravens is now represented by Alternate Public Defender Mary Ellen Attridge, who has said in court that Pacific Law Center handed over little work that was “usable.”

Now a lawyer hired by Cravens' family said a lawsuit to recover the fees is imminent.

“We're very committed to pursuing it,” said lawyer Douglas Gilliland. He said the firm's accounting shows that paralegals worked more hours on the case than the lawyers.

Complaints from former clients about the law firm have been lodged with the State Bar of California and the San Diego Better Business Bureau.

On March 19, the bureau revoked the law firm's membership, citing a steady pattern of complaints from consumers.

Steigerwalt said he was “flabbergasted” at the number of bureau complaints – 47 in the past 36 months, according to the bureau. He said he elected to let the membership of the old Pacific Law Center expire and plans to seek accreditation under a new entity later this year.
________________________

Comment:

Watch the video below. Can you imagine this guy having a sexual relationship with your daughter or sister. Phillips and Associates Law Firm in Phoenix, Arizona and Pacific Law Center in San Diego, California make a living from defending repeat child molesters, pimps of child sex, ETC....

This guy Alan Spears is not the only one from both of these law firms to violate your daughters and sisters. They have violated every child in the world for defending repeat child molesters.

AVOID Pacific Law Center, San Diego, California

USHOSTAGE1 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:58:00 GMT

Attorney Calls Pacific Law Center A Front
For Unauthorized Practice Of Law

courthousenews.com

SAN DIEGO (CN) - A former attorney for the Pacific Law Center, a champion for conservative issues, says the center "routinely commits malpractice," charges unearned fees and "takes legal action detrimental to clients."

The center "is an unlawful 'front' organization created by defendants Larry Majors, Austin Majors, and Jeffrey Phillips to permit them to engage in and profit from the unauthorized practice of law," one of their former attorneys says in Superior Court.

Carl Hancock says the La Jolla-based defendants "routinely commit malpractice in the handling of legal matters," churn legal fees, "take legal actions which are detrimental to the clients," charge excessive and unearned fees, and that Larry Majors is a felon whose conviction bars him from practicing law in California, and who fled from Texas "when faced with prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law." Hancock says he worked for the defendants from March 11, 2007 until Jan. 19, 2008, and that he was fired for repeatedly protesting their unethical and illegal behavior.

He describes the PLC as a fraudulent conspiracy that defrauds clients to unjustly enrich themselves, that the Majorses and Phillips, oversee the work of defendant "front" attorneys Alan E. Spears, Thomas Slattery and Kerry Steigerwalt, and that they fraudulently conveyed assets of the PLC to Steigerwalt, to duck liability.

Neither Larry Majors, Austin Majors or Jeffrey Phillips is an attorney, Hancock says. Austin Majors is Larry Majors' son, and Phillips is Larry Majors' son in law, he says.

The complaint continues: "Larry Majors suffered a felony conviction in the State of Arizona and which precludes him from becoming eligible to practice of law in the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Larry Majors, while residing in the State of Texas, engaged in schemes similar to those described herein and fled the jurisdiction when faced with prosecution for the unlawful practice of law."

Hancock describes Spears as "one of the 'front' attorneys who permit the other non-attorney Defendants to control the firm. Spears has actual knowledge of the firm's true ownership and control yet, in violation of the legal and ethical duties imposed on him by his membership in the Bar, continues to permit the non-attorney to make client decisions and profit from the unauthorized practice of law."

Hancock describes Slattery in similar or identical terms, and adds, "Defendant Slattery boasts privately of having 18 State Bar complaints filed against him, however, the firm has never disciplined Slattery for any complaint."

He claims defendant Christopher Castle is not an attorney authorized to practice in California, and that "Castle's role in the conspiracy is to manage and supervise the 'Intake Coordinators,' the firm's legal salesmen, who are instructed to extract as high an amount of attorney fees as the client will agree to bear. Castle's actions are controlled, directly and indirectly, by Defendants Larry Majors, Austin Majors, and Jeffery Phillips. The attorney 'front-men,' Spears and Slattery, operate under specific instruction from Defendant Phillips to exert no control or authority over Castle or the salesmen."

Hancock says defendant Michael Wilkes is not an attorney authorized to practice in California, and that "Wilkes' role in the conspiracy is to act as one of the firm's salesmen. Clients have repeatedly complained that Wilkes holds himself out to be an attorney and gives legal advice, yet the firm has never disciplined him for such activities."

And he says Stiegerwalt is an attorney who "knew or reasonably should have known of the unlawful and ethical activities undertaken by each of Defendant (sic). Steigerwalt's role in the conspiracy consisted of entering into a sham sales transaction for the purpose of protecting the assets of each other Defendant in the event of liability under this complaint."

He claims that the Pacific Law Center "is controlled by Defendants, and each of them, for the purpose of avoiding California state laws prohibiting fraud, theft, and the unauthorized practice of law." He claims they "routinely engages in fraud in the solicitation and retention of prospective clients." He claims the "non-attorney 'Intake Coordinators' ... routinely provide unauthorized legal advice and use 'high-pressure' and 'scare' tactics to induce clients to retain the firm."

He claims, "The actions and tactics of the non-attorney 'Intake Coordinators' are controlled, directly and indirectly, by Defendants Larry Majors, Austin Majors, and Jeffrey Phillips, who employ unskilled attorneys to act as 'front-men' for the firm. These 'front' attorney have no authority to act on their own." He claims they "extract excessive and unconscionable fees and that clients are not informed about the work to be undertaken until after their retention." He claims that "Although the firm publishes an in-house 'fee schedule' for the benefit of State Bar investigators, the firms' salesmen quote excessively inflates fees dictated only by the client's assent. ... In many case, the salesmen obtain and hold the prospective client's driver's license or identification card to prevent the client from leaving the premises."

He claims "that Defendants and their agents routinely make misrepresentations to the State bar and other public and non-public entities for the purpose of hiding or 'covering-up' Defendants' illegal activities."

He claims that he witnessed this while he worked for the Pacific Law Center, and that his bosses there "directed Plaintiff to perform frivolous and unnecessary legal work for the purpose of obtaining unearned legal fees in violation of the public policies prohibiting fraud and theft," and that "as a result of Defendants' repeated demands to engage in activities in violation of public policy, Plaintiff was constructively terminated from his employment."

Hancock, who filed the complaint pro se, demands an injunction and punitive damages for conspiracy to engage in unauthorized practice of law, constructive discharge, fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment, and asks the court to set aside fraudulent conveyance.

______________

Comment:

I have never heard of Larry Majors or Austin Majors untill I read the article above.

Why did Mr.Carl Hancock stay with the law firm for so long for? Why did he not just quit the minute he found out of the ongoing fraud and report them?

According to the article, Mr. Carl Hancock was fired from Pacific Law Center. - Mr. Carl Hancock filed his civil complaint after he was fired - could it be revenge, and or blackmail?

I think not. I think that the lawsuit itself is part of a ongoing coverup of fraud. Why has Mr. Carl Hancock not report them to Law Enforcement?

Every civil complaint involving Pacific Law Center in the State of California, and Phillips & Associates Law Firm in the State of Arizona, including every single negative news article against them which never came out untill I started to expose the ongoing fraud, fails to mention that at minimum Mr. Jeffrey L. Phillips, and Mr. John A. Schill have been advertising themselves as licensed California attorneys for several years, in which they were never ever licensed California attorneys and they still are not because they keep failing the California Bar Exam.

The media (TV & Newspapers - Even City Buses) take in millions of dollars every year from Pacific Law Center in the State of California, and Phillips & Associates Law Firm in the State of Arizona from advertisement. They have a motive ($$$) to conspire with this ongoing fraud and coverup.

HUSTLERS - THIEVES - CON-ARTISTS.

Pacific Law Center Sucks.