Complaint Review: Felipa Richland California Attorney

Beverly Hills attorney Felipia Richland was recently forced out of town due to her alleged criminal conduct that resulted in a lawsuit being filed against the attorney. In 2018, Westlake Village attorney Felipia Richland found herself at the wrong end of an elder-abuse claim filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Soracco v. Felipia Ruthie Richland, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Elder abuse is a growing issue of concern and seeing where criminal conduct that results in the victimization of an elder can also lead to a lawsuit against the abuser. That appears as what happened with Felipa Richland who now has her office in a cheaper area, Richland & Associates, Westlake Village, Ca.

In 2018, Westlake Village attorney Felipia Richland found herself at the wrong end of an elder-abuse claim in Soracco v. Felipia Ruthie Richland, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Elder abuse is a serious matter and no one, including Felipia Richland should be able to pray upon the old and infirm.

More recently it was discovered attorney Felipia Richland has associated herself with San Diego attorney Scott McMillan. Scott McMillan recently lost a 9th Circuit appeal where attorney Scott McMillan asked the court to remove a report where he is involved in child molestation. See Southern District of California Case No. 16cv2186-WQH-MDD.

The child molestation report is in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-0036344. Now it appears Felipia Richland has sunk to her lowest low where she solicits the help of an attorney like Scott McMillan who recently had his law school found to be a fraud by the State Bar of California.

In Felipa Richland v. Jeffrey Ketelhut et al.2d Civil No. B272028, Felipia Richland sued a HOA over grapes (literally) lost at the trial court level then appealed. The Court of Appeal found her case lacked any merit and denied the appeal. The Court of Appeal also said in part the, “remaining grounds for contesting the award of attorney fees are rejected for lack of meaningful legal analysis with supporting citations to the record and pertinent authority.”