Supreme court of california
Against Lawyer:
Glen deronde
Confirmed accusation against lawyer
Statement of the factual and legal bases of the state
1. The lawyer DeRonde was maintained in Nov by my dad Kenneth Chicken (now-deceased), to represent him as Participant in a divorce action. The first charge cited for this lawsuit was $5,000.00. At that time, no written retainer contract was available, in breach of Their State Bar Work §6148 (CA B&P Code). My dad did place this written down herself in December. And DeRonde verify an identical quantity in Interrogatories answered in March. [Exhibit A (4) - (5)]. These files were found in my own father’s document I'd acquired in the DeRonde law office in July. They seem to help the initial contract that Glen guaranteed to represent my dad in his divorce motion for nearer to $5,000.00 than $30,000.00. At that time, my father’s only revenue was $488.00 monthly Social Protection, and so I offered My Dad the $5,000.00 to keep DeRonde.
This lawyer continued to bill my dad $30,796.76 within the span of the breakup motion,
In breach of 4-200 (A) CA Bar Principles of Conduct, prohibiting unconscionable costs. [Exhibits T (1) - (22)] in The first statement in November of instantly my dad started to challenge the quantity of the expenses and precision of the costs and accounting. He reported a large number of occasions over many months about that but no modifications were available. [Exhibits T (23) - (31)]
2. Throughout the pendency of the divorce lawsuit, DeRonde got ownership of funds from many Inventory balances jointly-held between my dad and myself, totaling near to $40,000.00. The inspections weren't transferred for all months. The cash was ultimately put in a trust account in April and removed in May. At that time of withdrawal, $4,396.52 of these resources were obtained straight from the lawyer and also to this very day haven't been accounted for, it basically vanished. This really is in breach of 4-100 (A) & (W) CA Bar Principles of Conduct, Protecting Identification of Resources and Home of the Customer. This violates CA Penal Rules §§503,504 and 506 on Embezzlement. [Exhibits D (1) - (6)] additionally this qualifies as “Abuse of an elder or perhaps a dependent adult” under §§15610.07 & 15610.30 of California Survival & Institutions Rule under Monetary Misuse of an Parent.
3.in early 2007 DeRonde insisted my 70-year old dad have a mortgage against his life-insurance plan within the quantity of $30,000.00 and pay-down another mortgage on his house. At that time, my dad was under regular Household Law Restraining orders prohibiting him from getting this type of mortgage against his life insurance plan. My dad did
Not need to get this done and agonized over this considerably, but respected his attorney.in court looks in both March and January this returned to bother my dad, as he was educated in those days concerning the breach of the restraining order. [Exhibits D (7) - (11)] DeRonde making my dad to consider this mortgage and threatening to fall the situation if my dad didn't achieve this comprises being in breach of Their State Bar Work (CA W&P Signal) areas §6068 Responsibility of lawyer, §6103 Willful disobedience or Breach of Court-Order. Additionally this qualifies as “Mental suffering” under §15610.53 of California Survival & Institutions Code.
4.in July and September DeRonde, his personnel and his Paralegal Patricia Richie all enjoyed in defaming me, my lifeless dad plus one of my siblings by writing on the web bogus allegations of offenses and proclaiming my lifeless dad a “child molester”. DeRonde printed Lawyer/Client Privileged info on the Web within an try to convince me to prevent seeking justice for my dad by my efforts to recover the lost cash (known in section 2 above).in the end courtroom looks were total, in April my dads ex wife experimented with accuse my dad to be improper together with his step-daughter (as occurs in several cases of divorce). No reference to it was available in courtroom or within the divorce lawsuit. While my dad became conscious of the accusations, he named Mr. DeRonde to ask how to proceed. This discussion was guarded from the lawyer/client benefit and never part of Public Report of the breakup. This comprises an unconscionable breach of Their State Bar Work (CA B&P Code) §§6068 (e) (1) and (y) Responsibility of lawyer to customer. Additionally, these bogus allegations and incendiary, inflammatory defamations against me and my brother with no evidence of such, break Their State Bar Work (CA W&P Signal) areas §6106 Moral Turpitude, §6128 Deceit or collusion with intention against any celebration, 47 U.S.C. §230 Communications Decency Act, California Civil Rules §§43,44 & 45 Defamation and CA Penal Rules §§519 & 523 under Extortion, as just before publishing this online, DeRonde confronted to do this in a notice. [Exhibits N (1) - (8)]
5.in June my dad created a cost to DeRonde’s workplace by cashier’s sign in the quantity of $9,000.00 [Show E (1)]. DeRonde’s June payment first confirmed this cost properly, then your July payment exhibits DeRonde fixed the cost used, lowering the $9,000.00 to just $4,603.48 being applied to my father’s consideration. [Exhibits E (2) - (4)] Every statement from DeRonde between 12 thru 6 was wrong. The July statement copies unchanged 11 of the costs first charged about the June declaration. The August 07 claims does the same, just it provides Septemberis payment aswell to get a whole of 11 triplicate and 8 copied costs in mere 8 weeks period. The additional costs within this instance alone complete $2,214.25. [Exhibits E (5) - (7)] All of The expenses are saturated in apparent mistakes, wrong constant prices, and dual costs for similar products. The $320.00 judge charge necessary to react to the divorce request (just billed from the courtroom once) exhibits 11 differing times through the payment claims. That's an over-charge of $3,200.00. [Exhibits E (8) - (29) all expenses using the $320.00 are flagged] along with embezzlement laws, each payment violates 18 U.S.C. §§1341 & 1346 Federal Mail Fraud Laws under Starvation of Truthful Providers and utilizing the email for shipping of deceptive billing claims with the objective of acquiring money-not truly owed, due or gained.
6.in May while still addressing my dad the divorce process (up to now however not finished), DeRonde delivered my dad to selections for $8,307.16 that my dad didn't actually owe. [Exhibits Y (1)] Between 11 and 1 my dad settled DeRonde $25,976.76. [Exhibits Y (2) - (8)] DeRonde’s own Courtroom Affidavit 2 states his legal costs were $24,495.20 and court expenses were $786.00 totaling $25,282.00. The Historic Payment on 7/09/08 (delivered to me by DeRonde’s workplace upon my unwavering demands) says his legal costs were $26,287.85 and places the court expenses at $1,608.30 totaling $27,896.15. Until Mr. DeRonde is prepared to acknowledge to perjury in his court affidavit 2 [Show Y (9)] I publish the court expenses were $786.00, as no court costs were compensated after January (per the courtroom). From the period of the March affidavit, my
Dad had previously compensated DeRonde about $700.00 significantly more than was the supposed whole outlined within the affidavit of $25,282.00. Simply utilizing the two overpayment illustrations in the above list in section 5, it's apparent that my dad didn't owe something to DeRonde when he delivered my dad to selections. You will find a large number of payment mistakes within the 22 expenses delivered that take into account a large number of bucks of deceptive and over-billed costs that have been never fixed, regardless of how many calls or individual workplace looks my dad produced in order to do this. [Exhibits Y (10)]
7. Within the notice and historic payment from DeRonde dated 7/9/08, the office manager admits to discovering the lost $4,396.52 that's been lacking since May. The notice justifies not returning that cash towards the property of my lifeless dad because of forgiving an alleged statement due at that time of his demise of around $8,300.00. It's clear by their very own math within the judge affidavit, the payment mistakes and also the under-reporting of funds designed to them by my dad that there is no cash due DeRonde when my dad died. Actually, there must be an extremely big reimbursement due the Kenneth Chicken Property when the expenses are effectively fixed. [Exhibits Y (11)]
8. The divorce process DeRonde displayed my dad in wasn't complex. The wedding was under 10 years, no kids, two automobiles along with a pension account. The Individual served Professional Per for many of the situation. DeRonde deliberately delayed this situation to fill his legal costs that ought to not have been permitted because of his dental agreement and guarantee to accomplish the situation for $5,000.00. When DeRonde was approached concerning the around-payment, he advised my dad the bigger the expenses seemed the greater, whilst the legitimate expenses and attorney’s costs could be granted to my father at the conclusion of the situation. These were not. At that time my dad employed DeRonde for this divorce process, he and DeRonde have been buddies for 30 years or even more. Your day prior to the breakup was submitted, the Individual had washed over $30,000.00 out-of my dads banking account, making him cash-poor. My dad was informed the $5,000.00 was DeRonde’s discount to get a “friend”. A couple of months in to the situation, DeRonde found the $40K in shares my dad and that I possessed. The moment these inspections for all those resources were within the ownership of DeRonde (March), abruptly the regular bills started to exceed the guaranteed limit of $5K. The statement for April alone was $5,537.05. For May it had been another $4,321.90. Subsequently cash started to vanish (in May $4,396.52; in July another $4,396.52 whilst the $9,000.00 cost was fundamentally just acknowledged as $4,603.48). Your placement is the fact that DeRonde decided to consider the situation for $5,000.00 when he thought my dad had no liquid resources after his partner washed the banking account. Nevertheless, after DeRonde (through breakthrough) situated the inventory account cash, we think he conspired to acquire these resources aswell. The situation was saturated in deliberate delays breaking Their State Bar Work §6128 (w) Willfully slowing customeris match having a watch to their own gain.in this easy divorce process there have been at least five Revenue and Cost Conditions needed from my dad, four Test Times, five OSC Proceedings Movements, eight Negotiation & Administration Meetings and five Continuances. My dad was receiving more sick whilst the situation pulled on and held wondering why the setbacks, pleading for this breakup to determine. Dad’s concerns were usually overlooked or placated. When my dad asked the billing mistakes and required modification, my dad was informed he simply didn’t realize the payment. When my dad required modifications be produced before spending any extra cash, DeRonde might threaten to fall the situation. This worried my dad so much and produced such suffering he might place his mind in his fingers and cry, declaring how he couldn't combat both his ex wife and his attorney. Father didn’t possess the cash to begin once again having a diverse attorney and DeRonde understood it.By this time around my dad was in a wheel-chair and simply wished to reside to determine the race divorce finished. This undoubtedly qualifies as Elder Neglect under California Survival & Institutions Code §15610.53 "Mental suffering".
What the law states and condition club responsibility to community
The California Legislature discovered misappropriations of customer resources particularly crucial, whilst the probability of this conduct being truly a typical exercise of regulations corporation topics all the lawyer’s customers towards the potential of comparable victimization as explained in lines 2 and 5 above (Understatement OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES OF THE CLAIM area). The State Bar Work §6091.1 Customer Trust Account Analysis of Overdrafts and Misappropriations states: (a) The Legislature finds that overdrafts and misappropriations from lawyer trust accounts are severe issues, and decides that it's within the public-interest to make sure quick recognition and analysis of situations regarding overdrafts and misappropriations from lawyer trust records.
Even Though State Bar isn't assigned using the obligation of handling legal violations of regulations by lawyers, the consequence for breaking a situation principle of qualified obligation amounts from personal or public reprimand to suspension or disbarment. The State Bar Work §6077 Guidelines of Skilled Conduct—Sanctions due to their Breach states “the guidelines of professional conduct... Are binding upon all
People of Their State Bar” and offers for that control of its people (from the State Bar) by...”reproval, public or personal, or even to suggest... The suspension from exercise to get a time not exceeding three years”. Violations of the Their State Bar Work §§6103,6106 comprises trigger for disbarment or suspension of lawyer from the State Bar. Additional violations stated within this Confirmed Accusation bring fines of prison and/or penalties which, upon sentence of such, might ultimately result in disbarment or suspension of lawyer Underneath The State Bar Work §6102 Confidence of Offense. The State Bar, by declining to actually examine these grievances was neglectful of its responsibility to safeguard the folks of Florida by declining to impose the legal disciplinary procedure and methods against attorneys who break the regulations, regulations and guidelines they've sworn to support and follow. I've proven from the established criticism (with exhibits) towards the State Bar and by this Confirmed Accusation (with attached exhibits) that it's sensible to think from the details offered, lawyer Glen DeRonde has broken the CA Guidelines of Conduct, Their State Bar Work and different Condition and National regulations by his conduct. Particularly egregious of those being the breach of lawyer/client benefit and defamation by Web, getting an unconscionable charge, the willful disobedience in breaking a Court-Order, misappropriation of customer resources and Elder Abuse. To deny us of the capability to tackle these violations by the official State Bar analysis is add up to sanctioning such conduct, hence permitting this attorney to carry on to victimize his customers with impunity. I not just find justice for my dad, but to additionally avoid further potential victimization by this lawyer upon his potential customers.
0 comments