\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options

i see this advertisement every 3-4 months

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/lgl/2104599513.html ...
chandler  12/12/10
Seems legit
Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant  12/12/10
i bet they get 25 serious responses
chandler  12/12/10
I imagine they get much more than that. I imagine that it w...
Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant  12/12/10
I imagine they get much more than that. + 1
.,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:..:.,:.::,  12/12/10
clearly the job market isn't that desperate.
Bump Swatter  12/12/10
http://divorcelaws.biz/aboutus.html This law firm uses th...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
PDF] F. Bari Nejadpour (SBN 216825) Law Offices of Bari Nej...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
C.A.: Lawyer's Untimely Administrative Filing Inexcusable M...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
LAW OFFICES OF NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, APLC v. GONZALEZ ...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
california southern law school in riverside. wtf never he...
chandler  12/12/10
[PDF] Dating Site Sued by Man for Rejection - Online Dating...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
Air Force Web site hacker, 18, pleads guilty - Sacramento Va...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
Property valuation of 21st Street, Santa Monica, CA: 918, 91...
Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta  12/12/10
what
chandler  12/12/10
"L.A. Law Group, Inc." Isn't there some kind of...
michael yidd-killchrist  12/12/10
Present Active 8/21/2010 Active 2/21/2010 Not Eligible To ...
Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant  12/12/10
seems like an honest mistake
chandler  12/12/10


Poast new message in this thread



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 10:48 PM
Author: chandler (horace grant)

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/lgl/2104599513.html

seen it at least three times within the past year

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16796728)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:04 PM
Author: Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant

Seems legit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16796957)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:14 PM
Author: chandler (horace grant)

i bet they get 25 serious responses

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797073)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:15 PM
Author: Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant

I imagine they get much more than that. I imagine that it would be a waste of a job. Probably get zero training, treated like crap, and fired, with no reference, after your probation period.

Also, lol, at probation period. More like violation of labor laws period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797088)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:42 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,.,.,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:..:.,:.::,

I imagine they get much more than that.

+ 1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797348)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:33 PM
Author: Bump Swatter

clearly the job market isn't that desperate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797261)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:25 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

http://divorcelaws.biz/aboutus.html

This law firm uses the services of attorneys with many years of experience. One of our attorneys has been divorced for 3 times so he understands your pain, emotion and desire to protect yourself. We understand what you are going through, we have been there ourselves. One who has not felt the pain, the emotional assault and injuries and has not tasted the bitter flavor of DIVORCE would not fully understand you, and therefore could not guid you through these dark times.

Reality is this "DIVORCE is the final chapter of a beautiful book" Now you need to close this book and move on to a differnet book.

We are not Psychologist, or Psychiatrist, nor do we wish to be one. Our job is to protect your legal rights, we are TROYS of the courtrooms, simply put we are the "Guardians of Your Legal Rights"

This Law Firm uses the following services and experts.

1. California Licensed Private Investigators.

2. California Licensed Real Estate Appraisers.

3. California Licensed Real Estate Agents.

4. California Licensed Real Estate Brokers.

5. California Licensed Insurance Brokers.

6. California Licensed C.P.A.

7. California Licensed Forensic Accountants.

8. California Licensed Child Psychologists.

9. California Licensed Family Evaluators.

10. California Licensed Family Asset Evaluators.

Basically, we have access to any expert in any specialty which is required to address your concerns with respect to Child custody, Child visitation, Legal and Physical Custody and last but not the least the Division of Community Property.

Simply put, we will take every legal action to protect you if your needs, wishes and desires are within the bound of laws.

Additional

Our Mission Statement is as follows.

Either They are acting within the bounds of Law, or are acting outside the bound of law.

We will be as pleasant with the opposing party or opposing counsel as possible. Our commitment is to have a FAIR, EXPEDITIOUS AND REASONABLE RESOLUTION AT HAND WITHOUT ANY LITIGATION IF POSSIBLE.

Otherwise we would allow our judicial system to deal with parties who have no sense of cooperation.

Nejadpour & Associates a Professional Law Firm

213-632-5297

213-632-5299



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797169)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:27 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

PDF]

F. Bari Nejadpour (SBN 216825) Law Offices of Bari Nejadpour ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat

Jun 25, 2007 ... Law Offices of Bari Nejadpour & Associates. A Professional Law Corporation. 3540 Wilshire Blvd. #715. Los Angeles, CA 90010. (213) 632-5297 ...

www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/strike-reply.pdf -

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797194)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:28 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

C.A.: Lawyer's Untimely Administrative Filing Inexcusable

May 15, 2009 ... Munroe was represented on appeal by Nejadpour and Evelyn J. Abasi of the Law Offices of Nejadpour & Associates. Neither could be reached for ...

www.metnews.com/articles/2009/munr051509.htm - Cached - Similar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797200)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:29 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

LAW OFFICES OF NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, APLC v. GONZALEZ

LAW OFFICES OF NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, APLC, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JUDITH GONZALEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

B212803.

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five

November 9, 2009

Law Offices of Nejadpour & Associates, Evelyn J. Abasi for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Bruce R. Fink, Bruce R. Fink for Defendant and Respondent.

Not to be Published in the Official Reports

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff Law Offices of Nejadpour & Associates, APLC (the "PLC") appeals the trial court's ruling denying it attorney fees as the prevailing party in this lawsuit to recover outstanding fees from a former client. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

F. Bari Nejadpour is the sole shareholder and CEO of the PLC. Defendant Judith Gonzalez retained the PLC to represent her in a dissolution proceeding. The retainer agreement between Ms. Gonzalez and the PLC provided that the prevailing party in any action to enforce any provision of the retainer agreement would be entitled to the actual attorney fees and costs incurred in the action.

The PLC sued Ms. Gonzalez for unpaid legal fees. The PLC did not retain outside counsel to prosecute the action on its behalf, but prosecuted the action on its own behalf, through its associate, Evelyn Abasi. Thus, for example, the pleadings filed by the PLC were captioned: "LAW OFFICES OF NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Law Corporation, Evelyn J. Abasi, SBN 245157," and listed the PLC's address, telephone and fax numbers. Similarly, the PLC's pleadings were signed "Respectfully Submitted, NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, BY: EVELYN J. ABASI, Attorney for Plaintiff."

The trial court entered judgment for the PLC and against Ms. Gonzalez in the amount of $23,029.60, which figure included $5,429.60 in interest. The court confirmed that the PLC was the prevailing party in the underlying action.

The PLC then filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. The motion was accompanied by attorney Abasi's declaration in which she stated that she was attorney of record for the PLC, and to which she attached billing records which reflected the time which she expended in prosecuting the lawsuit. The billing records were apparently generated by the PLC as they were captioned "NEJADPOUR & ASSOCIATES, APLC, Slip Listing." The PLC requested the award of $104,121.40 in attorney fees.

After hearing, the trial court denied the PLC's request for attorney fees, based on Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 and Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201. The court specifically found that attorney Abasi was an employee, and not an independent contractor, of the PLC. The court concluded that there was thus no attorney-client relationship between the PLC and Ms. Abasi, which distinguished these facts from those presented in PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 and Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 212.

The PLC timely filed its Notice of Appeal of the trial court's post-judgment order denying its request for attorney fees.

DISCUSSION

In Trope v. Katz, supra, our Supreme Court considered "whether an attorney who chooses to litigate in propria person rather than retain another attorney to represent him in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney fee provision can nevertheless recover `reasonable attorney's fees' under Civil Code section 1717 (hereafter section 1717) as compensation for the time and effort expended and the professional business opportunities lost as a result." (11 Cal.4th at p. 277.) The Court first noted that that "an attorney litigating in propria persona cannot be said to `incur' compensation for his time and his lost business opportunities," as he does not become liable to pay himself compensation in exchange for legal representation. (Id. at p. 280.) The Court further stated that permitting recovery under these circumstances would "in effect create two separate classes of pro se litigants those who are attorneys and those who are not and grant different rights and remedies to each." (Id. at p. 277; see also pp. 285-286.) The Court concluded that neither the language of section 1717 nor the legislative policy underlying it supports such disparate, and unfair, treatment. (Ibid.)

While acknowledging the rule of Trope, the PLC argues that the facts of this case are more akin to those of PLCM Group v. Drexler, supra,22 Cal.4th 1084. There, the Supreme Court held that the policy considerations at play in Trope v. Katz, supra, are wholly absent when in-house lawyers represent their client that is, their employer in litigation. Said the Court: "Like private counsel, in-house counsel stand in an attorney-client relationship with the corporation and provide comparable legal services. In the case of such representation, the trial court retains broad discretion under Civil Code section 1717 to fix an award of attorney fees in a reasonable amount." (PLCM Group v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1088.) The Court noted that "A corporation represented by in-house counsel is in an agency relationship, i.e., it has hired an attorney to provide professional legal services on its behalf." (Id. at p. 1093.) In addition, "the payment of a salary to in-house attorneys is analogous to hiring a private firm on a retainer." (Ibid.)

The PLC contends that it is entitled to its fees under the authority of PLCM Groups, Inc. v. Drexler: "[T]he fact that Ms. Abasi is employed by the Corporate Party does not alter the fact that she is being paid by the law firm. Payments to Ms. Abasi for her services rendered on behalf of the Corporation in this action, are payments and obligations that the Corporation incurred as attorneys fees. . . . Thus, Appellant should have been allowed to recover its attorneys fees as being the prevailing party. Ms. Abasi, while providing professional services to Appellant, owed Appellant ethical and fiduciary duties that are present in an attorney-client relationship." The contention lacks merit.

The PLC is not a business organization which chose to invest in an in-house legal department rather than retain outside lawyers to represent it. Rather, the PLC is a law firm in the business of providing legal services to clients. Ms. Abasi is not the PLC's in-house counsel; she is its associate that is, an employee of the firm hired to provide legal services in the name and on behalf of the firm to the firm's clients.

Nor does Gilbert v. Master Washer and Stamping Co., Inc., supra,87 Cal.App.4th 212, provide authority for an award of fees to the PLC under the facts of this case. In Gilbert, a lessee sued its lessor and the lessor's attorney, David Gernsbacher, for breach of the lease. Mr. Gernsbacher was a partner in a law firm, Gernsbacher & McGarrigle, which represented him in the lawsuit. After he won his dismissal from the lawsuit, Gernsbacher sought an attorney fee award pursuant to section 1717. The trial court denied the request, ruling that because he was represented by his own law firm and did not present evidence that he was "obligated to pay" the fees incurred on his behalf by the lawyers who represented him, Trope v. Katz, supra, precluded a fee award.

Our colleagues in Division Seven of this District Court of Appeal reversed that ruling. The Court held that Gernsbacher was entitled to recover attorney fees because he was sued in his individual capacity and was represented by other members of the firm. Thus, he was not litigating this matter in propria persona but was represented by counsel, with whom he shared an attorney-client relationship. "There can be no question an attorney-client relationship is also present where an attorney litigant is represented by other attorneys in his or her own firm. In this case, Messrs. Beach and McGarrigle of Gernsbacher & McGarrigle, like the in-house counsel in PLCM Group but unlike Messrs. Trope and Trope in Trope, represented not their personal interests or even those of their law firm, but the separate and distinct interests of Gernsbacher himself." (Gilbert, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Here, in contrast, Ms. Abasi, like the attorneys in Trope, was representing the interests of the firm itself, not the separate and instinct interests of a member of the firm. Thus, Gernsbacher does not authorize a fee award in the present case.

In Witte v. Kaufman, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 1201, the plaintiff, an attorney, sued his former client, the client's former counsel, a law firm ("KLA"), and the client's opposing counsel, an individual ("Kaufman"). The trial court granted the defendants' special motions to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, and awarded them attorney fees pursuant to subdivision (c) of that statute. The plaintiff appealed, contending that, pursuant to Trope v. Katz, the defendant attorneys were not entitled to a fee award.1

KLA, the law firm defendant, contended that it was entitled to recover attorney fees because it did not appear in the action in propria persona, but through the representation of three of the firm's attorneys. The Witte Court rejected this argument, noting that "The only way KLA could possibly appear in this action is through one or more of its attorneys, or through outside counsel. By KLA's theory, it could never represent itself in litigation. In Trope, the party that was denied attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 was a law firm that appeared through one of its attorneys." (Witte v. Kaufman, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210.)

In contrast, in the instant lawsuit, the PLC sued Ms. Gonzalez in its corporate capacity. The PLC could only prosecute this action through the efforts of an individual either an employee of the PLC, or outside counsel. It chose to have Ms. Abasi, an employee, litigate the matter. Thus, the PLC prosecuted the action in propria persona. Consequently, it is not entitled to recover attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Footnotes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797213)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:31 PM
Author: chandler (horace grant)

california southern law school in riverside.

wtf never heard of it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797243)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:32 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

[PDF]

Dating Site Sued by Man for Rejection - Online Dating Law

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Date: September 15, 2005 F. Bari Nejadpour & Assocates l ,4' l4 . ':7. By: g g / 6,-- ... Page 8 of 8. Law offices of F. Bari Nejadpour 81. Associates ...

www.onlinedatinglaw.com/docs/ComplaintJdate.pdf - Similar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797252)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:34 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

Air Force Web site hacker, 18, pleads guilty - Sacramento Valley ...

"They call this a breach of security, but there's no security if a high school student can break through it," defense attorney F. Bari Nejadpour said. ...

www.sachitechcops.org/news041403.htm - Cached - Similar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797272)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:36 PM
Author: Gibreel "fuck my ass" Farishta

Property valuation of 21st Street, Santa Monica, CA: 918, 918, 918 ...

Owner: F BARI NEJADPOUR Total land value: $438178. Total building value: $186021. Total value for property: $624199. Recording date: 11/06/2002 ...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797294)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:39 PM
Author: chandler (horace grant)

what

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797314)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:40 PM
Author: michael yidd-killchrist

"L.A. Law Group, Inc."

Isn't there some kind of professional rule against (1) firms being regular corporations and (2) firms having names other than the names of partners?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797327)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:41 PM
Author: Giant Gay Monkey Riding on Top of a Small Elephant

Present Active

8/21/2010 Active

2/21/2010 Not Eligible To Practice Law

12/4/2001 Admitted to The State Bar of California

February 21, 2010

FARI BARI NEJADPOUR [#216925], 48, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with an actual suspension of six months, and he must take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Feb. 21, 2010.

Nejadpour stipulated that he did not inform opposing counsel, their clients and the court in three divorce cases that he was the owner and his wife the realtor in the company that was listing the community property houses for sale. Nor did he inform his clients in writing, as required. He also did not inform parties on both sides that they could seek advice from an independent attorney relating to the fact he had a financial interest that might not be to their advantage.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797343)



Reply

Date: December 12th, 2010 11:48 PM
Author: chandler (horace grant)

seems like an honest mistake

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1507211&forum_id=2#16797405)