G M.
1/5
Hedayat claimed to have decades of litigation experience. When filing his Appearance, he paid a fee but it was a free filing. His office failed to catch the error in billing and I had to advise them of the mistake multiple times to correct billing. Though I gave Hedayat many electronic files of discovery documents already produced and a list of those documents, Hedayat had his staff review the documents and compile another list. Though the Court held Status Hearings over the internet and Hedayat didnât have to travel to the courthouse, Hedayat billed hours to attend Status Hearings that usually only last 15 to 20 minutes, thousands in billing consumed.
When hired, Hedayat claimed he had practiced before the assigned judge. Instead of pressing Plaintiffsâ lack of production documents and lack of response to a 201k letter during a Status Hearing, which is the first usual step, Hedayat drafted a formal motion to compel and set a briefing schedule. Plaintiffs didnât file a Response but responded orally during the set hearing claiming they didnât have any more documents. Hedayat claimed this was a victory, but also stated the court wouldnât have granted the relief Hedayat sought in his motion without further briefing. However, he later failed to enforce that victory when additional information was obtained. Then Hedayat and staff sent several emails, thousands in billing, arguing with me whether or not I should be able to review documents Plaintiffs did produce and other issues. Hedayatâs and staffâs arguing directly violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), mandatory licensing regulations.
Then we were supposed to set depositions. Hedayat wanted to depose someone who hadnât been involved in any matter for 30 years, wasnât a party, hadnât been heard from in years and lived in a different State. I asked why depose someone without any involvement, but he replied that questions should be asked of this person, what questions. Hedayat actually set the deposition date without any contact info. Another email basically indicated Hedayat was going to depose the court reporter. Depositions were set for others but just before those were scheduled, additional information was received indicating Plaintiffs were hiding responsive documents. Rather than enforcing his claimed victory from the errant motion to compel, Hedayat did nothing. Hedayat and staff started a new argument. Rather than answering my questions, according to him asking questions is actually wrong as all I may do is approve the cost and have âNo additional inputâ. I am just supposed to pay the bill he generated. Hedayatâs and his staffâs continued arguments and other issues also consumed billable time and were in direct multiple violations of the Supreme Courtâs RPCs. Even his retainer agreement violates the RPC.
The above doesnât address the information given under attorney/client which should not have been disclosed to Plaintiffs but was disclosed. Hedayat hired part time or temp personnel and the last was a new Law Clerk who was still in High School playing on the softball team. Before he withdrew, he was giving notice that additional matters needed to be investigated prior to Plaintiffâs deposition and was asked to and required to obtain additional time to take depositions to preserve my rights. He filed his motion to withdraw, but failed to preserve my rights and seek an extension of time for depositions. Current counsel may not be able to depose anyone and was forced to enter the suit responding to Plaintiffsâ motion for partial summary judgment. Hedayat claimed he has decades of litigation experience and this is the result of that claimed experience.
This is only some issues.
Do you think the above constitutes malpractice or something else? Is this your next attorney?
