Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
The Evil Esquire Bar Association is seeking public comment regarding the misadventures of California attorney Sean Alan Rutledge [#102003], prior to accepting nominations for his induction into the EEBA.
Sean’s addition to our watch list was precipitated State Bar of California press release alleging “STATE BAR TAKES ACTION TO AID HOMEOWNERS IN FORECLOSURE CRISIS.” According to the release, many California lawyers are taking fees in consideration for assisting homeowners to work out their mortgage foreclosure issues and failing to deliver services. Caveat Emptor!
According to the CalBARFOONS they’ve received numerous complaints regarding Rutledge and his firm, United Law Group and are advising consumers to proceed cautiously when dealing with him and his associates.
Anyone needing to find Sean to give him money in return for the prospect of his not providing services can contact him at the following address:
United Law Group Inc
2525 Campus Dr
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: +1 (800) 680‑5717
Fax: +1 (800) 560‑0452
Email: sean@unitedlawgroup.com
Interim Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner recently expressed bewilderment regarding the number of lawyers “preying on vulnerable homeowners.” “The number of attorneys using their law licenses to essentially take money from unwary but trusting consumers is astounding,” according to Weiner.
Obviously Russ has been living in a different dimension and just rejoined the human race here in reality. Each year, formal complaints are filed against 8.5 percent of California’s active lawyer population. From 2004 through 2008 the Cal Bar disciplined only 3.1 percent of the lawyers regarding whom they received complaints. During this period, only 0.8 percent of complaints received by the Cal Bar from consumers of legal services i.e., victim clients, opposing parties, etc. resulted in disciplinary action against the offending lawyer. The only conclusion we can draw from our analysis is that the California Bar is highly political– read corrupt.
For decades, California’s lawyers have been given too much latitude by the State Bar to screw consumers of legal services. The crisis Russ finds himself entwined in has been building for years. Radical left wing progressives dominate the Bar’s policy formulation and have sucessfully moved it away from its charter as an attorney regulatory body into a political instrument. They fork over tens of millions in political donations to the likes of Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, SENATOR Barbara Boxer a/k/a Ma’am and too many state assembly politicos to count. In return they enact or fail to enact legislation to protect California bar members’ franchise to screw consumers. In Jerry Brown’s case he simply refuses to investigate allegations of attorney criminal acts– until the media picks up on a case.
Empty headed, former State Bar Court Judge JoAnne Earls Robbins who criticizes California bar prosecutors as “unreasonably strict” and advocates against permanent disbarment as well as numerous other California attorneys who’ve successfully lobbied against allowing victims statements to be heard and considered by the State Bar Court when dispensing discipline are the ground troops in this undeclared war against liberty, justice and the property rights of Californians. It’s Rome all over again!
Consumers of legal services in California cannot rely on the Cal Bar to assist them in the event they become a victim of, for instance, one of the 13,529 attorneys complaints were filed against in 2008. Moreover, it is very difficult to discern whether or not a lawyer has engaged in “misconduct” or even illegal activity because the Cal Bar does not publish the complaints they “decline” to investigate. California consumers “roll the dice” every time they retain a lawyer and one out of twelve times they will make the wrong choice.
While California is certainly in the bottom quartile of U.S. “attorney discipline” systems, in our opinion, no state adequately protects consumers. EvilEsq.com can help to equalize this problem. If you have information regarding the attorney mentioned above please, comment on this post, rate the lawyer’s “evility” and assist others to find EvilEsq.com and this post by using the button to post a link to EvilEsq.com.
If you’ve filed a complaint against an attorney that your state’s bar overseers have “declined” to investigate, forward it along with any exhibits thereto for our consideration for publication.
If you know of a lawyer who’s worthy of induction to the EEBA? Send a brief summary of the lawyer’s qualifications along with his or her full name, state(s) of licensure and other identifying information to victims @ evilesq.com and, depending on their conduct, we’ll add them to our Nominee roles or Watchlist.
We strongly advise anyone contemplating hiring a California attorney use our LAWYER PROPHYLACTICS.



UPDATE: The State Bar of California has filed a petition with the State Bar Court to halt Rutledge’s practice of “law.” His hearing is scheduled for October 15, 2009. All of his “clients” should plan to attend as Sean will undoubtedly be returning monies he received for his services including amounts to cover damages his “clients” incurred as a consequence of their retaining him.
State Bar announced yesterday they are placing Rutledge on “involuntary inactive status.”
We are victoms of this guy and his law firm. I would like to hear from anyone who could help us file a complaint with the proper legal channels and file for damages with his malpractice insurance. We paid $4,400.00 to him for services we have not received. We are now a month and a half away from the foreclousre sale and if that does go through, we will then lose $441,000.00, all the farm animals we have along with all the income that they would make after slaugther and sale of product.
Please email (anyone) with this knowledge. My father and I are both disabled and make only a little from farming and our social security. My wife works double shifts and is extremely exhusted when she has any time off.
Thank you (anyone) who could assist us with this matter!
Sincerely,
Michael L. Stump. FengQin Li-Stump and Clifford A. Stump
@Michael L. Stump: If you can’t get a written synopsis of what Rutledge has done on your behalf, you should contact the State Bar of California, the California Attorney General and the Attorney General of your state to determine how to proceed. I also recommend contacting your mortgage company to verify Rutledge is working on your behalf and if not that you attempt to work with them directly concerning your modification or seek counsel of an attorney you know as to how to proceed.
I met with Sean Rutledge earlier this year to discuss conducting investigations into the alleged illegal activities of other firms that were also doing loan modifications.
He made it a point to let me know how ethical his firm was, explaining all the legal requirements for doing loan modifications. According to Rutledge, one of his goals was to recover money for his clients that had been ripped off by other firms that were doing illegal loan modifications. Even though he indicated that he really needed our services, I could never get him to answer his phone or return calls from my office.
I’m glad someone in my office was keeping tabs on him. I’m also glad he never returned my calls. Now I can delete the service agreement I had drawn up for his firm.
@ Michael L. Stump,
don’t take this the wrong way, but just out of curiousity… if you & your father are both disabled, how were you planning on maintaining a farm full of animals.
According to Sean Rutledge’s Bar Ethics Attorney, The Judge hearing his case and many others involving so called “Loan Mod Fraud,” Judge Honn., was approached by The State Bar Prosecutors and offered a bribe. Judge Honn, who has his application for superior court judge pending with the Cal Bar, was told he would be appointed to that position if he would find against Rutledge and all other attorneys involved in providing Loan Modifications.
United Law Group is now run by Robert Buscho who is also listed here as evil. Buscho represented Rutledge in his Civil Rights suit against the Bar removal of his license. The Bar refused to give him a 2nd extension to a pre-hearing meeting to answer complaints. Rutledge claimed he could not make the meeting because he is disabled due to diabetes so that was an ADA violation which is a Civil Rights violation. The case was dismissed.