A tipster (send in your tips here) sent me in the following interesting document. Mitchell Stein is a person that has been in the spotlight by the California Attorney General and California Bar over alleged participation in mass joinder related issues. You can see all the past stories here.
I probably would not have published this client document below but the reason I felt I HAD to share this with you was because of the most unusual narrative, otherwise known as page 2, that is part of a client agreement with this firm. It is the first time I’ve seen anything like it in a client agreement.
According to the client agreement, attorney Mitchell Stein “has been designated as an “inactive” member of the California Bar as of January 1, 2012.” A look at the California Bar record says “1/1/2012 Ordered Inactive 11-TR-18758 Not Eligible to Practice Law.” – Source
Inactive, not eligible to practice law, or disbarred, even I’m not certain how those terms may relate or not relate. The reality is they’ve been used and maybe even interchangeably.
The document the California Bar provides publicly about Stein’s inactive ruling says:
On November 23, 2011, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (State Bar) filed a motion seeking the involuntary inactive enrollment of attorney Mitchell J. Stein (Attorney Stein) under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (b)(2) and rules 5.180 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. A copy of the motion was properly served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on November 23, 2011, on Attorney Stein and Erickson M. Davis, attorney Stein’s counsel in the underlying Superior Court action. Attorney Stein did not file a response to the State Bar’s motion, and the time for him to do so has now expired.
Attached to the State Bar’s motion is a copy of a superior court order assuming jurisdiction over Attorney Stein’s law practice, issued by Judge Jane L. Johnson on October 26, 2011, in In the Matter of the Assumption of Jurisdiction over the Law Practice of Mitchell J. Stein, dba Mitchell J. Stein and Associates, State Bar Membership No. 121750, Los Angeles County Superior Court, case No. LC094571. The superior court assumed jurisdiction over
Attorney Stein’s practice under Business and Professions Code section 6190 et seq. The superior court’s order does not provide for any exceptions to the court’s assumption of jurisdiction over Attorney Stein’s practice.
The court finds that the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that an order involuntarily enrolling Attorney Stein as an inactive member of the State Bar of California is appropriate under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (b)(2). (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.182(A).)ORDER
The court orders that the State Bar’s November 23, 2011 motion for involuntary inactive enrollment is GRANTED. Accordingly, the court further orders that Attorney Mitchell J. Stein be involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar of California (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6007, subd. (b)(2)) effective three days after service of this order by mail (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.184.) – Source
The client agreement from Spire Law Group gives this narrative: (I inserted the paragraph breaks to make it easier to read.)
You are aware that one founding member of the Firm, Mitchell J. Stein – the lawyer known as the “Doberman” by news agencies and home owners alike (by the International Olympic Committee and Warner Bros. alike), and the lawyer who previously represented the FDIC and the RTC and the United States of America – has been designated as an “inactive” member of the California Bar as of January 1, 2012.
You further understand that Mr. Stein is nonetheless licensed to practice law and continues to do so in federal courts across the country. (Contrary to State Bar representations reported to the Firm, Mr. Stein has not been “disbarred” or anything close thereto.)
This is the lawyer who has been indicted and sued by the Federal Government regarding an FDA-approved ECG heart device, and is in a series of lawsuits against Kamala Harris (a relative of Barack Obama) who is the California Attorney General.
Also, you are aware that Mr. Stein represents numerous plaintiffs who are suing the government (State and Federal) across the Country to end what he and many others (e.g., CBS news) believe is corruption that has caused this banking crisis.
Indeed, Mr. Stein has already appeared in a CBS interview regarding the corruption and the banking crisis.
Mr. Stein is authorized to practice law in federal court and is representing hundreds of plaintiffs there in California and elsewhere.
It is because Mr. Stein is the only lawyer “going to to toe” against the government and their corrupt banking partners that you wish to retain the Firm. This is a material factor inducing the Firm’s execution of this Agreement. The Firm would not enter into this Agreement absent your express and specific intention that you wish to the involved with Mitchell J. Stein.
Additionally, you understand the Firm has other partners, associates and lawyers who are not on “inactive” status including James N. Fielder who was previously in charge of operations for Universal Studios and Sony Corporation, Eric Wittenberg who is an Ohio lawyer practicing in numerous states and one of the most prolific writers of the Civil War in America – having published numerous books.
In California, the Firm has agreements with many lawyers, including Erikson M. Davis who has extensive experience in the banking crisis and surrounding litigation.
All of these lawyers will be coming in to represent your interests as a nationwide team.
It is now a fierce battle agains the government and their partners the banks, and this is true for all homeowners and all citizens. We will vigorously and zealously represent you to prevail in this “battle of evermore.”
We appreciate that you have sought out the Firm, because it is the only Firm that does not advertise its services but nonetheless is taking on the government and their partners the banks nationwide connection with this period of American history involving “Chicago politics” and “corruption.”
And that’s most of page two of the client agreement.
I did reach out to CBS News for a comment from them about the claims made about CBS News. As of the publication of this article I had not heard back.
The remainder of the client agreement I was sent which was represented as the Spire Law Group client agreement, which you can read here, has some other important points as well:
- “the Firm shall be paid an up-front, non-refundable, non-creditable, fully earned, retainer in the amount set forth in Exhibit “A”.
- “You are obligated to reimburse the Firm for costs in this representation, including time spent by other lawyers approved by you, travel expenses, facsimile charges, filing fees, service or investigative fees, experts, record securement, deposition fees, trial costs, parking, postage, photocopying expenses (at 25 cents per page), phone charges and other standard costs, all of which costs shall be reimbursable by you within thirty days of our incurring them.”
- “The reimbursable costs referenced herein are recoverable as Court costs, but you shall never be required to pay additional fees or costs to the Firm after your initial retainer payment. The Firm shall be entitled to seek recovery of those costs from the Court opposing counsel, the opposing parties, or from settlement proceeds.”
- “In that case, you authorize the Firm to track its time and to apply to the Court for payment of our legal fees and we shall keep all monies paid therefrom. Our fees range from $200.00 per hour all the way up to $750.00 per hour.”
- “You are not bound to keep the Firm as your counsel by this Agreement and you are free to terminate this Agreement at any time. Should you elect to terminate this Agreement, however, you may be liable to the firm under applicable law for legal fees owed to us.”
- BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, YOU ARE WAIVING AND RELINQUISHING FROM NOW UNTIL FOREVER ANY RIGHT TO LITIGATE AGAINST THE FIRM BEFORE A JURY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IRRESPECTIVE OF JURISDICTION OR VENUE OR THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE.”
The agreements says the Spire Law Group, LLC is located at 21781 Ventura Blvd, Suite 607, Woodland Hills, CA 91364. 818-597-2100. That address is listed as the office of Mitchell Stein by the State Bar of California. – Source
According to Google Maps, this is a picture of 21781 Ventura Blvd.
Spire Law Group
The Spire Law Group website appears to be tciwest.com/law/ The domain name tciwest.com is represented to be owned by Becca Bartholemew of Withheld, Arizona. Prior to that on December 8, 2011 it was said to be owned by Bonnie Butterworth of Parker, Arizona. In August of 2011, Bonnie Butterworth was said to be at Withheld, Westlake Village, California 91361.
The Attorneys page on the Spire Law Group website lists other people besides Stein. Toby Butterworth, along with Rosario Soto, and Eric J. Wittenberg, are included as company members. – Source
This may be the same Rosie Soto that in December was said to be with a firm called RDSM, LLLP.
The footer was included in an email forwarded to me that was allegedly sent by “Mitchell J. Stein & Associates – email@example.com” in December of 2011.
I did find one company named RDSM, LLLP in Boca Raton, Florida. It lists the business address as 601 S. Federal Highway, Suite 202, Boca Raton, FL 33432. – Source. Michael Riley is listed as the general partner. A Michael Riley in Florida was previously named in this press release issued by Stein and it listed Riley as “former State of Florida Fraud Chief Michael Riley, Esq.”
Even though the date on the bottom of the Spire Law Group website says 2009, the homepage is still just gibberish placeholder text.
The Spire Law Group site states the following information on it about Stein.
“Hire the Firm with intellectual capital and experience beyond any group of so-called Super Lawyers. “The Doberman.” Mitchell J. Stein, Esq. is a 25-year award-winning litigator licensed by the State of California with no record of discipline action by the State Bar at any time (click here).”
“Contrary to representations made by the State Bar, “inactive” status is not discipline. It has nothing to do with discipline. People can voluntary place themselves on inactive status, and an attorney who is ill may be found to be in inactive status. For avoidance of doubt, this law Firm has never been sued by the State of California or the California State Bar or any Court or Bar Agency. This Firm has never been disciplined, nor have any of its members. At the request of the Firm’s associates and clients, the Firm discloses that Mr. Mitchell J. Stein has not been “disbarred” despite disinformation given the press by adversaries referenced in this Website.” – Source
What I found interesting is that while this is the Spire Law Group, the website says “All content included on this Web site, or incorporated by association, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, and images of any kind, are used with permission or are the property of Mitchell J. Stein & Associates LLP, its strategic alliances, clients, or contributors.” – Source
So is Spire Law Group really the property of Mitchell Stein or is it just the intellectual property associated with the website?
Another little curious spot on the site was the foreclosure mitigation page. It’s blank. Yet the firm represents in the alleged client agreement they have a foreclosure mitigation department so it’s something the firm does. But apparently not enough of to have a description of the services on the site, just a blank page.
Frankly, I have no clue what this circle of information and explanations is trying to tell consumers. To me it seems to contain conspiracy theories and explanations that raise some concerns or at the very least create more questions than answers.
And to leave you with a final statement from the Spire Law Group website, I’ll let this speak for itself.
Based upon the recent shocking testimony of supposed “State Bar Investigator” Thomas Layton in the United States District Court — where Layton was unable to introduce any evidence in support of Kamala D. Harris’ allegations against Mitchell J. Stein — the Firm will be initiating motions for contempt, for Rule 11 sanctions and for Section 128.7 sanctions due to Kamala D. Harris’ fraud on three courts. Mr. Stein has given Ms. Harris and her criminal cohorts until January 22, 2012 to dismiss all cases against Mitchell J. Stein and his clients; and to pay all clients of the Firm a minimum of $100,000 each for their trickery on courts in Florida, New York and California, and their trickery practiced against citizens across the country. Safe harbor notices have been received by the California State Bar and if they do not responded to, the courts will be asked to intervene. To review the California State Bar’s admissions that they have no evidence supporting the allegations made by Kamala D. Harris in Los Angeles’ Van Nuys court on August 15, 2011 and made by Ms. Harris 7 times thereafter. View/download file here.
Furthermore, Kamala D. Harris has now been sued by a federal bankruptcy trustee in New York for her misuse of “police powers” in interfering with victims of the Bernard Madoff scam. This is substantially similar to her interference with victims of the national banking scams, where she has intentionally and brazenly interfered with the rights of any United States citizen she or Mr. Obama can find. For a copy of the pleadings where Kamala D. Harris is currently being mauled by the New York Trustee, please carefully review this Website in its entirety.
As has been reported on this Website since 2010, be advised that the Firm is not affiliated in any way with persons named “Noel,” “Lauri,” “Erica,” “Wendy,” “Stuart,” “Vito,” or “Chris” and such persons are not authorized to speak for the Firm. Further, the Firm is not affiliated with persons called “RDSM”, “MLA,” “K2″ or Philip Kramer. We have posted this notification at the request of numerous clients of the Firm as well as members of law enforcement and the media nationwide. – Source
But I wonder if that’s the same RDSM that a Rosie Soto is identified with? Is it a different Rosie Soto? Is Rosario Soto not Rosie Soto? Just based on public information, it’s a mystery, a very confusing mystery.