Attorney Malpractice

…from the failure to proffer necessary documents. It is well known that the opponent to a summary judgment motion must offer admissible proof that a question of fact exists. The opponent of a motion to dismiss an auto case for lack of serious physical injury must offer the affidavit of a physician, and that affidavit must set forth some objective proofs of the injury.

…the failure to sue a specific individual, the failure to add certain claims to the complaint, the choice of witnesses, the choice of evidence to include on a motion or at trial, the failures of discovery, investigation questions at deposition…

bluestonelawfirm.com

 

January 2010

It is now time for me to fill this out and submit it

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Ethical Conduct Complaint

OFFICE OF THE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD

ETHICAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT

NAME OF ATTORNEY:

 

J Arthur Smith III

 

The total amount our unethical attorney – J Arthur Smith III – has the audacity to claim we owe him for his role in helping to make sure our lawsuit against Riverstone Residential and the owners of Jefferson Lakes Apartments never makes it into court

Eleven thousand – something hundred dollars and something cents!!!  I tossed the bill aside and will have to find it to get the exact amount.

Hopefully others will see this and not have their case compromised by this unethical, lying, sorry excuse for an attorney.  

Hopefully he will be found guilty of obvious malpractice in a court of law that is not corrupt. 

 

How Litigation against Riverstone Residential Gets Dismissed – Plaintiff’s Attorney Subpoenas wrong Company – No Evidence

Guarantee Services Team of Professionals does an extremely large amount of service calls to Jefferson Lakes Apartments to vacuum out air ducts and dryer vents.

An employee from this company came to our apartment along with the head of maintenance (this is documented in the depositions). This was after we were told they were coming to test (for the presence of mold) and then clean. By then we knew that could not possibly be done in one afternoon and told them we would rather wait until we could be away from the apartment. They came over to look anyway. The Guarantee Services employee was able to determine by simply looking at our mold covered air vents that the black growth was “dust”. “Dust” is the word management uses when people complain about this black stuff (mold growth) on their vents and then would have them vacuumed out.

The plaintiff’s(me) attorney subpoenaed records from this company because they would show if air duct cleaning had been done in our apartment in the past and how many times. Since the perfectly clean and freshly painted over air vents were totally covered in black thick mold growth in just 3 months – it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out they would have obviously needed to be and were cleaned before.

There is an Affidavit of Guarantee Service Team of Professionals, Inc. where secretary/treasurer Ellen Folks swears that the copies of records we were given are a true and accurate copy of their business records. There are many records showing service calls to the apartment complex but not the ones in the time frame asked for which is the whole point. This error was not corrected by the plaintiff’s attorney.

To possibly get around having to provide any records that might show service calls to the apartment we were in and to be able to swear never having performed any cleaning services is perhaps the reason for the Affidavit of Guarantee Girls, Inc. a company with a “similar” name and owned by Ellen Folks the secretary/treasurer for Guarantee Services.

Simply put, there is a sworn affidavit for service records for the wrong time frame and there is a sworn affidavit from a company saying they have never performed cleaning in the apartment. Correct, they have nothing to do with this except to play a part in an obvious plan to get this case dismissed.

Before I requested copies of these records I had spoken with “my” attorney a couple of times on the phone. I asked about the records from Guarantee Services and he would say “Girls” at which point I would correct him and say it is not Girls” its “Services”. When I received a copy of the subpoena to Guarantee Services for the records and affidavits I called him and told him it was “Services” and not “Girls” and had even looked them up and knew they were separate companies owned by the same individual.

I guess all this “wrong doing” is the reason it took me four phone calls to finally get these records. Maybe all those involved thought I would not ask for copies. Things just did not seem right and they obviously are not. This is only one part. There is more.

 

This was the response I received from my attorney when I asked why they did not ask for the correct records (2005 and the previous 3 years as stated in the supeona) instead of what was received (2004-2007).  It gets more complicated with the different companies owned by the same individual with similar names but separate – see – plaintiffs attorney subpoenas wrong company – no evidence – more on that to follow.

Attorney’s answer –

“…unable to ascertain what your exact concerns are with the Guarantee Girls affidavit and the Guarantee Service Team of Professionals subpoened records. We have records dating from 2004 through 2007 for Guarantee Service Team of Professionals.”

 

The records sent by Guarantee Services – the company Riverstone Residential usually used to clean out as much mold as possible in the air ducts and dryer vents at Jefferson Lakes Apartments

I say usually because I have photos of at least one other company they used.

The records they sent are not what were subpoenaed because the records that were subpoenaed would have evidence of duct cleaning in the apartment we were leased.  Usually that is the reason the attorney would want those records but not in this case.  There was also no subpoena for records of say any other companies that clean air ducts and dyer vents.  

The records for 2005 and the three previous years were subpoenaed but here we have a miscellaneous collection (2004 – 2007) on a quick report with a selected few more detailed invoices (which have no particular importance over any of the others) thrown in.  This random selection of records (even though it does show an obsessive amount of air duct and dryer vent cleaning) was thrown together for the judge, who wasn’t really going do more than take a quick glance (if that) then grant the motion for summary judgement for the defendant as was the desire of all parties including the plaintiffs attorney!  See attorney malpractice and court documents.

The amount charged for air duct cleaning is usually $215.00 and dryer vent cleaning is usually $150.00.

 

Attorney Malpractice – Air Environmental Subpoena – Jefferson Lakes Apartments managed by Riverstone Residential

This is the Subpoena for Air Environmental – the mold testing company Riverstone Residential used at Jefferson Lakes Apartments #2907 (see apartment management orders 24-hour air test).  This is also the company used for mold testing at the complex during a sale in 2007 and obviously ignored (see mold inspection reports).

Again, records for 2005 and the preceding 3 years were subpoenaed.  Again, just like the records for Guarantee Service Team of Professionals, records are received for the wrong years to avoid having evidence that Riverstone Residential knew of mold problems (see attorney malpractice).  To avoid having evidence of Air Environmental having been to the complex before 2005 and therefore evidence that Riverstone Residential knew of mold problems, records for 2007 were sent.  I’m not sure if this was as obviously planned as the Guarantee Service Team of Professionals records or if Air Environmental themselves sent the wrong records.  Either way, this was not corrected.  Unfortunately, for the defendants and my attorney this revealed the mold testing in 2007 for the complex that documented the mold issues there and just ignored.

Again, there has been no answer on this from my incompetent and unethical attorney.

 

How Riverstone Residential Litigation gets Dismissed – Court Transcript – Riverstone Residential’s Motion for Summary Judgment – Judge Timothy Kelly – 19th Judicial Court – Baton Rouge, LA

This is an example of the corrupt judicial system. I have more notes to write about this but until then I would like to point out that we did not see the apartment we were leasing and our attorney does not mention that. As far as how was the management company supposed to know there was mold?  Well, they have had to have a mold testing company come out and test before from complaints.  They have the ducts cleaned out on a regular basis and paint over the vents.  There is the 2007 mold report done during the sale of the complex that points out all the mold.  The judges wife is the Commissioner of Administration and on the State Bond Commission that approved the sale of the complex.  Hmmm…