LA Court Issues Permanent Order Assuming Jurisdiction Over the Law Practice of Mitchell J. Stein

Mitchell J. Stein is an attorney in California who was alleged to be involved in the marketing of mass joinder cases to consumers to join a lawsuit against their mortgage lenders.

A permanent order was issued on October 26, 2011 and states the State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel is appointed to do the following:

Examine, retrieve, remove, and secure in a protected area, all the files and records of Mitchell J. Stein’s law office located at: (a) 28720 Canwood Street, 2nd Floor, Agoura Hills, CA 91301, (b) 2950 Buskirk Ave., 3rd Floor, Walnut Creek, CA 94597, or (c) at any other address in California where reliable evidence establishes client files and law office records are located.

The areas to be examined are identified as all locked and unlocked rooms, attics, basement, file cabinets and other locked or unlocked storage devices and areas and other parts therein and the surrounding grounds and any garages, storage areas, trash containers and outbuildings of any kind located thereon, under the care, control and/or custody of persons located at the law practice and/or located at the location where client records and files are being kept. The examination shall also include any and all brief cases, satchels, backpacks, day planners or purses under the care, custody and/or control of persons located at the law practice.

The items to be retrieved, secured and examined shall include all law office records including, but not limited to, office memoranda, ledgers, journals, financial statements, checking and savings account records, bank statements, cancelled and uncanceled checks, check ledgers, check registers, bank signature cards, bank books, deposits, withdrawals, exchange or transfer documents, receipts, credit and debit slips, capping records, safe deposit box records, keys, rental documents, credit company reports, negotiable instruments, payroll records, personal notes, legal files, and bank or other financial records evidencing the obtaining, secreting, transferring or concealing of assets.

The items to be retrieved, secured and examined shall include any of the above described evidence whether printed, hand-produced, or recorded photographically, electronically, mechanically, or by other means. Where a file or record is maintained in a mechanical device such as a fax machine, computer, video or audio apparatus, magnetic tapes, discs (floppy, mini, CD, laser, and hard drive), such apparatus in its entirety including complete hardware, supporting software for data retrieval and material describing operation of the apparatus shall be retrieved, removed or secured.

See also  Mass Joinder Case Form 1012-R Marketing Material Hits New Jersey

Where records and files are stored or maintained in a file cabinet or similar unit, the file cabinet or unit shall be retrieved, removed and stored with the records and files intact.

The court order also states the following shall take place.

  • Notify persons and entities who appear to be clients and other interested parties of the pendency of, and reasons for, the proceeding and inform clients that it may be in their best interest to obtain other legal counsel.
  • Retain all client files retrieved, removed and secured from the law practice and distribute those client files to clients at their request.
  • With the consent of the client, file notices, motions and other pleadings on behalf of the clients as appropriate, where jurisdictional time limits are involved and other legal counsel has not yet been obtained.
  • Photograph and/or videotape execution of this order as necessary to document compliance with the court order.
  • Arrange for the surrender or delivery of clients’ papers and property.
  • Freeze (or place a hold on) any and all law office-related bank accounts, or client trust accounts, held in the name of Mitchell J. Stein, dba Mitchell J. Stein and Associates, and/or any other law corporation or law partnership owned by Mitchell J. Stein…
  • Endorse any check received by the State Bar which is made payable to Mitchell J. Stein, in his capacity as attorney, and/or Mitchell J. Stein and Associates, and deposit the check into any bank account frozen pursuant to this order, or in the alternative if no such account is frozen, the State Bar has the authority to safeguard said checks pending disbursement.
  • File a change of of address notification with the U.S. Postal Service to forward all mail addressed to Mitchell J. Stein and Associates, located at: (a) 28720 Canwood Street, 2nd Floor, Agoura Hills, CA 91301, (b) 2950 Buskirk Ave., 3rd Floor, Walnut Creek, CA 94597, and to forward mail to the attention of Blithe C. Leece, c/o State Bar of California, 1149 South Hill St, los Angeles, CA 90015. Moreover, the State Bar may open and examine all mail which is forwarded pursuant to this paragraph.
  • Direct the appropriate telephone company or companies to disconnect, and/or intercept, any and all telephone, telefax, DSL, and pager lines associated with Mitchell J. Stein’s law practice, including without limitation; 877-475-2448, 914-843-7957, and 914-652-2431, to refer all calls to a specific telephone line at the State Bar, which shall be established to receive the calls.
  • Mitchell J. Stein, or any knowledgeable person found on the premises of his law practice, is ordered to provide to the State Bar and and all passwords and/or protocols required to access data stored electronically on any computer processing unit located at his law practice and/or removed from his law practice pursuant to the order.
  • Mitchell J. Stein, or any other person having knowledge or possession of the following, is further ordered to deliver to the State Bar, within 48 hours of service of the order: (1) all remaining client files and client property, (2) all client names, addresses, phone numbers and any other contact information, and (3) all client trust accounting records required by rule 4-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, maintained or stored by him. – SourceSource

When I read the document it appears that this order does not prevent Mitchell J. Stein from practicing law.

I invite Mitchell J. Stein to comment or add any clarification he feels is necessary to assist readers to properly interpret this reporting of this most recent action.


You are not alone. I'm here to help. There is no need to suffer in silence. We can get through this. Tomorrow can be better than today. Don't give up.

Do you have a question you'd like to ask me for free? Go ahead and click here.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me

13 thoughts on “LA Court Issues Permanent Order Assuming Jurisdiction Over the Law Practice of Mitchell J. Stein”

  1. The Dog Catchers have been busy. The “doberman” no longer allowed to practice law per CA State Bar website. “Would you like fries with that sir……”

  2. There is no law practice of Mitchell J. Stein. On May 2, 2011,
    Mitchell J. Stein & Associates LLP was approved by the State
    Bar. These are two different entities. In California a lawyer can
    only be a part of one law practice, which means that when the LLP
    was formed, Stein’s previous law practice became a nullity. The LLP
    was never sued and Stein is not precluded from practicing law in
    California. The order assumes jurisdiction of a non-existent law
    practice. Nothing has changed with regard to Stein’s lawsuits and litigation. 

    • There was a law firm by that name before. He used it in his bankruptcy. It’s only a matter of time before he will find another dummy to foot the bill and ruin their name.

      Answer this burning question. If Mitchell Stein is so against Bank of America, then why was he using Bank of America accounts after he sued them in 2009? Anyone can pay a couple of bucks and print out his accounts. He filed bankruptcy. His accounts definitely have the Bank of America logo and he signed his name on some of the statements when he submitted them to his own bankruptcy.

      Who sues a bank, calls the bank evil and greedy, and keep their accounts with the same bank? You really think he’s out to help you. He’s out to help his own pocket. Gee whizz! The man is in bankruptcy. That alone should make you cautious. Bank of America alone could not had put him in bankruptcy.

      This same guy is showing a debt to the MGM for almost a million dollars. If he didn’t gamble that million dollars then maybe he could had saved his own family’s home in Arizona and his own L.A. house wouldn’t had been on the chopping block at some point.

      The blind is leading the blind!

      If anything Mitchell Stein should had disclosed his bankruptcy and the judgment against him for a milion dollar gambling debt.

  3. Have any criminal charges been filed against any of the Mass Joinder attorneys – yet – or is this a civil proceeding by the California AG’s Office?  At least one of the players has a VERY checkered past.  I will be very interested how this shakes out. 

      • He’s suing them because they are investigating HIM. If you would had read the latest PUBLIC SEC filings by Heart Tronics, you would had noticed that the company acknowledged they were being investigated. If you would had READ the class action lawsuit by duped Signalife investors you would had seen as early as January 2011, it was stated that their was a SEC investigation. Mitchell Stein was clearly listed as a defendant in that lawsuit that settled for $4 million according to the SEC filing. That whole Signalife/Heart Tronics was nothing more than another scam such as this mortgage one. This all happened before Mitchell Stein filed that lawsuit that makes him look like a meth head on crack. He sued the investigators that were already investigating him if you would have been following the timeline over the last year.

    • I find it interesting that Mr. Stein is labeling Californian Attorney General Kamala Harris as being essentially dirty for accepting $1,500 in campaign contributions from Bank of America, when he himself donated over 10 times that (in one transaction alone) to former CA AG Bill Lockyer, as the link below shows. 

      A little research shows that the Stein family – through various businesses and family members – donated something like $250,000 to former CA AG Bill Lockyer last decade.

      I’ve researched Mr. Lockyer.  He’s just not that worthy.

      Did these donations attempt to influence Mr. Lockyer in any way?

      Those Lockyer donations smell a little funny, no? 

  4. Have any criminal charges been filed against any of the Mass Joinder attorneys – yet – or is this a civil proceeding by the California AG’s Office?  At least one of the players has a VERY checkered past.  I will be very interested how this shakes out. 

  5. I like
    the fact that you posted that he can practice law in this article. However, I
    still think that you should post the recording on the other article because
    some might not see this one. The other article clearly uses that word
    “but” that leads the person to have doubt because you follow it up
    with the State Bar recording. It seems to me that it would be more responsible
    to either add the recording or remove the statement. The reason is because
    Stein’s clients have been put through so much already Steve. They live in fear
    all the time. The suggestion in your other article causes doubt by adding the
    word “but” and then the current recording telephone bar
    recording.  Therefore, you might create
    not only fear, but a mistruth of doubt that will be spread by others who read
    it.  It could spread a rumor around that
    Stein cannot practice law.

    it seems that it would make sense to post it in the other article, since the
    other article it is where you sort of cause doubt. Here you do not cause doubt
    but say that the can practice law.

    cooperation would be very much appreciated in this matter.




      • Well I
        thank you for that. I appreciate it.

        though you do not agree, when one says “but” in the context you said
        it in, it means there is more to the story.  This is especially since the average person is
        confused by the bar recording. I think even you were even confused by it, which
        is why you put “but” and followed it with the recording.  The “but” made it as if you were implying the
        ramblings were not true, “but” the recording was saying he could not
        practice.  That is the way the average
        person would take it.  To be accurate, it
        should be followed with “However” there is this recording that says he can
        practice law.  It will make it seem less
        biased and confusing.  It would then be

        though, I guess I will take what I can get J  Thank you for doing that Steve J

        Can I
        still take you up on your offer to post it in this article?





Leave a Comment