A lawyer, Irby Walker, is
charged with
hiring someone to kill another lawyer, with whom he shared an office until 2006, for $10,000 (a life imitates art moment that sounds quite a bit like a
comic book, I read once, which is part of a
larger distopia of big law life). True to lawyer form, he paid the hit man part of the fee upfront, with the rest reserved to assure performance.
The defense being mounted to this charge of attempted murder by checkbook, by his attorney, George McMaster, is aptly characterized by Above the Law as a Chewbacca Defense:
He didn’t get a gun, he didn’t go try to go shoot somebody, he’s probably not capable of shooting somebody.
Clearly, this is why Walker hired a hit man instead.
5 comments:
CA Nightmare Lawyers STORY:
Adams Kessler, PLC Cabal…
Truth be told, Adrian J Adams, Esq teaches all his commissioned “associate” to advertise heavily “RESTRAINING ORDERS” because this is where they make the ‘quick buck” doing what they do the best, fabricating evidence and lying in court selling the inherent perception that lawyers should be trusted because they are the officers of the court.
Yeah, right!
Known as “lunatic with crazy ayes” Adrian J Adams, Esq and devils’ assistant herself Karen Nagad, Esq. filed fraudulent TRO against a petit size homeowner with no merit and lost in Santa Monica Courtroom earlier this year. Judge was shaking his head at Karen Nagad, Esq. and Adrian J Adams whose apparent lies and fabrications were obvious to an idiot.
Adrian J Adams, Esq is so unethical that even Adrian Adams’ former partner Jean (AuCoin) McDonald left him … Adrian J Adams hijacked the phrase and bought as domain Davis-Stirling.com so all the California condo law related question goes to his firm. Tricksters dopes what tricksters do, what can I say! Sadly and ironically, one after another HOA’s are getting to know how perfidious, sadistic and unethical ADAMS KESSLER, PLC lawyers are and are getting Adams and his cabal FIRED!
Adrain J Adams, Esq of ADAMS KESSLER, PLC, owner of http://www.Davis-Stirling.com is the WORST HARASSER OF HOMEOWNERS.
Right after Adams comes Karen Nagad, Esq (fabricates evidence and lies in court) and Matthew Gardner, Esq, a former public defender form OH, turn homeowner-harasser-direct, direct from his home (quality fo his work is law not one will give him a desk at the office).
Shame on you KAREN NAGAD,ESQ: You and your boss Adrian J Adams cannot obstruct justice in America by forcing those who are underpriviledged to "keep quiet" or "stop talking about it" because you don't like homeowners to know what you did to some of them. You are doing terrible wrong which must cease immediately.
A quick Superior Court Search reveals Adams was sued repeatedly for the long list of torts and other causes, ranging from Constructive Fraud and Harassment of HOA Treasurer (whose refused to overpay unqualified contractors) to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which he apparently practices regularly to hide in so called “executive sessions”. There are some reports that Adrian J Adams, Esq harassed another Board member by taking upon himself the right he does not have to CENSURE the Board Member and by trying to expel him from HOA meetings, which is preposterous. What I can add to your story above is if there is a LA County wide contest for the most outrageously unethical lawyer practicing Common Interest Development [Davis-Stirling Act] law, Adrian J Adams would CERTAINLY win one of the top positions along with his associate Karen Nagad who some comments on the internet suggest utilizes lies and fabrications to mislead tribunal in clear violation of State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 and 3.3.
If what you are reporting is true, as we strongly believe it is, you may wish to file a strong complaint against Karen Nagad with the California State BAR, requesting she is expeditiously reprimanded for misleading the court, fabrication of evidence and if the BAR find it appropriate Karen Nagad should be disbarred: along with the “gang leader” Adrian J Adams, Esq from Inglewood, CA.
The Rule: The California State Bar Act provides as follows:
A. HONESTY REQUIREMENT; PROHIBITION ON DECEPTION
1) “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: *** (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d).
2) “The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106.
3) “Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either: (a) Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party. ….” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6128(a).
B. ACCOUNTING FOR MONIES RECEIVED
The Rule: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6128(c) provides that “Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who … [w]illfully receives any money or allowance for or on account of any money which he has not laid out or become answerable for.”
C. PROHIBITION AGAINST PRESENTING CLAIM NOT WARRANTED.
The Rule: Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-200 provides as follows:
“A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is:
(A) To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or
(B) To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.”
D. FAILING TO ACT COMPETENTLY
The Rule: Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-110 provides as follows:
“(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
(B) For purposes of this rule, “competence” in any legal service shall mean to apply the 1) diligence, 2) learning and skill, and 3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.
(C) If a member does not have sufficient learning and skill when the legal service is undertaken, the member may nonetheless perform such services competently by 1) associating with or, where appropriate, professionally consulting another lawyer reasonably believed to be competent, or 2) by acquiring sufficient learning and skill before performance is required.”
Feel Free to repost this summary for use by the public injured by this ruthless cabal of extortionist and harassers.
E. PROHIBITION AGAINST ADVISING THE VIOLATION OF LAW
The Rule: Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-210 provides that a member “shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.”
F. PROHIBITION AGAINST THREATENING CRIMINAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
The Rule: Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-100(A) provides that a member “shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute….”
Post a Comment