Complaint Review: Gwire Law Offices - Emeryville California

I am currently suing Bill Gwire for fraud.  It is at least the 21st time Gwire has been sued, including by at least TEN former clients.  If you would like to review these cases, many can be found at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services.  Mine is case #510305.  

Gwire has not only been sued by at least ten former clients, but also by his own former law firm, an employee, his co-counsel, his predecessor counsel, an expert witness, and three other legal service providers, among others.

*Note:  In at least one case, Gwire has explicitly demanded arbitration to avoid a public record, writing the attorney of the person suing him: “Your filing has now created a public record of an action against me which the arbitration provision was intended to avoid.”  (SF Case #506498, in which an expert witness sued Gwire).  Gwire then threatened to seek sanctions against the attorney, unless the case was moved to arbitration. This information is known only because, when the arbitrator ruled that Gwire must pay the plaintiff over $120,000, Gwire argued - in Court - that the arbitration was improper (the Court disagreed).  In my opinion, Gwire’s efforts to avoid “public record of an action against [himself]” begs the question of how many cases against Gwire can’t be found because he succeeded.* 

I have previously posted a complaint about Gwire, but took it down after he made a series of serious threats, discussed below, and sued me for defamation (also case #510305).  However, I am posting again because (among other reasons) I have learned more about his history, which leads me to believe he is likely to harm other innocent people. 

Gwire’s threats against me were alarming for several reasons, including that he had been brought up on assault and battery charges, in criminal and/or civil court, for two entirely separate events.  Gwire's threats have suggested that he would also seek violent revenge against me, as he wrote, “just as [you] saw fit to fight outside the legal arena, I feel free to do so as well.  And, I don't feel the need to broadcast how, when, where or in what way I may do so.”  

Gwire sent this on Feb 20, 2012, despite our conflict already being in court.  That is, though our case was already underway, and Gwire had all the advantages of being a veteran litigator against a former client who was not an attorney, Gwire still issued this extremely broad threat, with all manner of “how, when, where [and] what” left to the imagination.  Gwire and I had exchanged emails regarding his assault and battery cases, and, in this context, I believe that Gwire fully intended for me to know that his threats included violence.  

The assault & battery charges / claims, some civil, some criminal, were brought against Gwire for allegedly beating up four people.  Gwire admits to purposely punching at least three of them, including a man who was 5’3”, 126 pounds (the same police report described Gwire as 6’, 210 pounds), and another man who was 71 years old (when Gwire was 50).  Additionally, a young woman alleged Gwire punched her in the mouth and knocked out her tooth after Gwire followed her and her friend into a parking lot in a case of road rage (Gwire admits to purposely following these complete strangers into a parking lot, and claims she may have “caught an elbow” while he was punching her friend).  

See the end of this posting for further details regarding the assault and battery cases. 

*Please note: You will find many statements like “in my view” and “in my opinion” throughout this posting.  I have learned in the course of Gwire’s defamation claims against me that these are essential, even for statements that one may reasonably infer are opinion.  If there is a statement herein that may not be factual, please assume it is my opinion, even if it is not explicitly stated.*

 The following is a very small sampling of the events that lead me to believe Gwire defrauded me, many more of which are detailed in my filing of 2/24/14, found at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services, case #510305. 

Just two months before our hearings, we needed to prepare urgently.  Gwire agreed and wrote “Great news.  My trial got continued.  I’m totally cleared for your case and will dive in 110% starting immediately [for the] all out commitment that I and the office have to make from this point forward. . .”  However, contrary to his email, Gwire was by no means “totally cleared for [our] case.”  Rather, he was swamped with other cases, and he was particularly preoccupied by lawsuits against himself.  As one of a great many examples, the very day after he wrote this, Gwire sought reconsideration of a ruling against him, in a case in which his former client was suing him, and three days later there was a hearing in that same case.  And on that same day, three days after he wrote that he was “totally cleared for [our] case,” he filed a brand new suit for yet another client.  This was typical of his activity throughout the coming months.  These facts and many others, which I believe demonstrate the statement quoted above was fraudulent, are detailed in a timeline at the end of my filing of 2/24/14.  

Similarly, in the middle of our hearings, Gwire wrote, "starting Saturday, we turn our attention exclusively to your case.  I have nothing else on. . .” Again, the timeline in my filing, dated 2/24/14, proves this was false.   In the days and weeks following Gwire's email, it is an absolute fact that Gwire had many demands in several cases, including at least one in which he himself was being sued.  And as a result (in my opinion), Gwire was shockingly unprepared for our case, and presented almost none of the essential evidence.  This evidence which Gwire failed to present is also outlined in my filing of 2/24/14.  

Based on my partial review of some of the other legal filings against Gwire, I believe that he regularly and egregiously mistreats his clients and others.  Some of these other cases are discussed in my filings, as well as his.  I encourage you to read not just my views of these cases, but also Gwire's own, so that you may know his side.   I also encourage you to read the filings, mine, Gwire’s, and other people’s, because this short review can only explain so much, and not as clearly as a longer version.  Please also note that many of the cases against Gwire ended in confidential settlements, or the outcomes are unknown (Gwire himself says he does not know the outcome of several).  Gwire also won several, and lost several (his losses include a client suing him and prevailing for $90,000, another client suing him and prevailing for $30,000, and an expert witness suing him and prevailing for $120,000).  Where Gwire prevailed, I still conclude from the filings (those I was able to review) that he did things no attorney should do to his clients, or others with whom he does business.  And regardless of the outcomes, it is a fact that many people have felt so strongly that Gwire mistreated them that they were willing to go to court against a lawyer who has far more experience than they do (it's what he does for a living), and thus also has a huge advantage in court.

Note that I am not a lawyer.  My case against Gwire is in progress and in this case he has not been found “guilty” of anything.  It is my belief that he should and will be found guilty of fraud, as dictated by the following statute and the events described in my legal filing, a tiny fraction of which are mentioned above. 

California Civil Code §1572 states: 

Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

   1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

   2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;

   3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

   4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,

   5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

I have read many pages of other lawsuits against Gwire, and thus believe that Gwire’s treatment of me was not an isolated case.  Here is an excerpt from a legal filing by Readylink, another of Gwire’s former clients who sued him.  Many of the experiences described by Readylink are very similar to my own, as detailed in my filings.  In this excerpt, “GLO” is Gwire Law Offices.  Case # BC423848, filed for fraud, 10/15/2009, in Los Angeles.

“Despite having been engaged in July 2006, Defendants did not begin reviewing hundreds of boxes of client documents until March 2008, only three months prior to the then scheduled trial, and some 18 months after the LBBS Litigation was commenced. Defendants did not even substantively begin the process of gathering information necessary to contact key witnesses or subpoena critical documents from third parties until eighteen (18) months into the case. . . Successor counsel. . . diligently took on the task of document review, discovery and preparation for trial in May 2008. Over 39 witnesses were deposed in the course of 49 days of depositions, every one of them taking place after the services of Defendants Gwire and GLO were terminated. . . Gwire and GLO knew that Gwire did not have sufficient time, ability or availability to be personally responsible for the case and to personally handle all significant matters. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Gwire and GLO knew that Gwire had a pattern and practice of taking on too much work, having other persons cover for him, and delaying until the last minute to prepare, a practice that would not work in the LBBS Litigation, which was known from the outset to be very complex. . . As a proximate result of the fraudulent and deceitful conduct of the Defendants herein alleged, Plaintiffs were induced to and did spend countless hours of their time, and the time of their staff members, in providing information to Gwire and GLO, in trying to educate Gwire and GLO about the facts of the case and critical evidence, all of which was wasted because Gwire and GLO did not do their job; Plaintiffs were distracted from the fruitful conduct of their business by Gwire's failure to perform; Plaintiffs were made to suffer the loss of value of their time, energy and skill, and the delay of their trial for nearly a year or more. . .”

Gwire has stated that the case settled.  Thus, no authority has ruled on the above claims, either for or against Gwire.  He also claims that the “confidential settlement” involved Readylink paying him substantial fees.  He has not stated whether those fees were reduced due to Readylink’s allegations.   I do not know any way to determine the outcome and whether Gwire’s claims are true (perhaps it will come out in our proceedings).  Regardless of the outcome, Gwire’s behavior described herein is very similar to what I experienced with Gwire.

The following are other lawsuits against Gwire that I have been able to find.  Records of lawsuits are very difficult to find and usually require going to the courthouse (and it seems arbitration records are impossible to find).  Thus, I have only searched a few counties in California.  Based on the fact that Gwire has worked in many states, and the many suits against Gwire in the counties I have searched, I believe it likely that there have been other lawsuits against him.  However, this is only my inference.  It is possible that these are all the lawsuits that have ever been filed against Gwire.

Mead, Gwire’s former client, San Mateo: Gwire’s former client sued him and his co-counsel for attorney malpractice. Gwire’s insurance carrier paid $90,000 to secure a settlement with Mead. Mead’s filings state: “… defendants negligently and carelessly caused the Trust Estate… to lose its right and title to valuable assets including. . . 110 Redwood Drive, Hillsborough, California… As a proximate result of the said negligence… plaintiff has been damaged in a sum in excess of $500,000. . .”

Boudett, Gwire’s former co-counsel, Marin: Mr. Boudett, Gwire’s co-counsel in the Mead Case, also sued Gwire, claiming that Gwire’s alleged negligence also forced him and/or his insurer to pay $85,000 to Mead, in addition to the $90,000 that Gwire’s carrier paid.  As stated in Boudett’s filings: “Court. . . Opinion clearly indicates that the trial judge who heard the [Motions]. . . clearly believed that defendant Gwire was negligent. Furthermore, that negligence was compounded by the Trial Court finding that it was inexcusable.”

Wollrab, SF, in which Gwire and his former client were sued for malicious prosecution, SF. Gwire claims not to remember this case. Strange, as he worked, and then was sued for his work, for at least SEVEN (7) years, and the charges against him were quite serious. A jury found Gwire and his co-defendants (at times with particular emphasis on Gwire, as discussed) had submitted a “Will [that] had been fraudulently altered. . . A letter written by defendant Gwire. . . is replete with evidence of the malicious nature of the will contest and appeal. . .” The plaintiff in the malicious prosecution case, a 75 year old woman, claimed that she “endured threats from Defendant Gwire” and that his and/or his co-defendants’ malicious actions were so severe and caused her such “fear, worry, anxiety, sleeplessness, and depression.” The 75 year old woman’s filings state that she “. . . awoke one morning with frightening symptoms of a heart attack. She was taken by ambulance to Stanford Hospital, where she was hospitalized for 3 days of tests. Ultimately, she was was diagnosed as having suffered coronary artery spasms as a result of stress.” The court records are vague regarding the outcome and, again, Gwire claims no memory of it, despite such serious accusations and Gwire’s involvement for at least SEVEN YEARS.

Russin, Gwire’s former law firm, where he worked for at least part of the Pets case:  Gwire’s former law firm was also in conflict with Gwire, in both the Pets case and otherwise. Russin’s filings state:  “Gwire’s paranoiac opposition cries foul at every turn. Each of Gwire’s objections, however, is built on a web of inaccuracies, misleading statements, and outright falsehoods. . . In an amazing attempt at revisionist history, Gwire virtually erases his role in the Pets proceedings.”  Gwire argued that his former firm’s actions toward him were partly due to their prior legal conflicts and bitterness toward him, stating: “. . . the dispute led to an extremely hostile legal proceeding which ultimately resulted in a settlement. . . I believe there is a significant residue of bitterness.”

Roulac, an expert witness, SF: An expert witness sued Gwire and prevailed for over $120,000.  Gwire then took more than two years (including an appeal) to pay the judgment, and paid only when faced with an impending debtor exam.

Madden, a client, in SF: Gwire claims that “I never knew [the case] existed until Mr. Blumberg's motion." This is clearly false. Less than a year before he signed that declaration, Gwire fought to keep the subject out of another case in which he was being sued (Krantz v. Gwire).  Remarkably, in that case too, Mr. Gwire claimed that he had never before heard of the Madden case. One thing’s for sure: he heard of it in the Krantz case before claiming he had never heard of it in the current case.

 American Realty, a client, SF:  Gwire states “I have no knowledge of the disposition.”

 Chao, a client, SF:  Gwire states “I have no knowledge about [the] disposition.”

 Scherpf, a client, SF, who Gwire’s malpractice insurance paid $30,000 (according to Gwire):  Scherpf’s filings state that Gwire and his firm “. . . breached their fiduciary duty by giving false and misleading advice, by failing to carry out their duties as attorneys, by causing the dismissal of plaintiffs' action, by not keeping plaintiff informed of the litigation against Michael Hall, and by placing defendants' own pecuniary interests above their clients interests.” Scherpf stated further that Gwire engaged in “egregious discovery abuses, which resulted in dismissal of the case.”  Gwire has said that: ". . .settlement was made for approximately $30,000...  Although I disputed the claims, the settlement, recommended by my insurance carrier, seemed the best alternative for all parties.”  In another comment about the Scherpfcase, Gwire wrote that it:   ". . . settled for a very nominal amount."  Whether $30,000 is “very nominal” is a matter of opinion, but it is not credible that Gwire himself even believes what he wrote, in part based on his appealing the two $5,000 cases won against him (at least initially) for assault and battery in San Francisco. If $30,000 is “very nominal,” why go to the trouble of appealing $10,000, particularly after admitting to punching both men?

 Readylink, a client, Los Angeles:Described above. 

Arminak, a client, Los Angeles:  Gwire’s former client sued Gwire. Gwire then counter-sued. I believe this case ended in a confidential settlement, details unknown. Among former client’s accusations: “Billing Plaintiffs for time not actually worked on Plaintiff’s case. . .” “Failing to act competently in the representation of Plaintiffs, including in the advice and recommendations given to Plaintiffs and in decisions made during the course of the underlying actions, all with the primary intent and concern to increase the amount of fees collected rather than advancing the best interests of Plaintiffs…” “Repeatedly and continuously assuring Plaintiffs orally that they would prevail and that they would recover their attorneys fees, without ever placing same assurances in writing, with the intent to attempt to immunize Defendants and enable them to deny same if ever challenged.”

 Shapiro, his former employee, sued Gwire and alleged:  "Gwire intentionally concealed the settlement and contingent fee from Plaintiff in order to avoid paying Plaintiff what she is owed. . . pursuant to their contract.  Gwire's conduct was designed to deprive Plaintiff of her property and to take that property for himself. . . Gwire has fraudulently converted Plaintiff's monies..."  Gwire claims that “Shapiro netted about $500 after arbitration.” Gwire does not say what he means by “netted.”

Hallock, former client, sued Gwire. It appears that Gwire was able to get the case dismissed, arguing that his client waited too long to file and thus no longer had the right to sue.

Krantz, former client, sued Gwire.  This claim states that "Gwire lost important documents...  Gwire failed to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in performing legal services for Plaintiff and was negligent and careless in his representation of Plaintiff." 

Seltzer, Gwire’s predecessor counsel:  It appears Gwire prevailed in this case.  Before this outcome, Seltzer filed with the court many hundreds of pages regarding how, in her view, she (and Krantz, above) were wronged by Gwire. 

 Sheila Chase, a Court reporter, sued Gwire.  Outcome unknown.

 Friedman:Sued Gwire for malicious prosecution, after Gwire brought a legal malpractice case against Friedman.  Friedman’s complaint states that Gwire “brought the malpractice action in bad faith and knew or were wantonly reckless in not knowing that there was no basis for that suit. . .  Trial was set in the malpractice action.  Ultimately, none of the Defendants [including Gwire] appeared for trial and the case was dismissed. . .”

 Cooper Philips & Peterson.  Details so far unknown.  Unable to find documents online.

 U.S. Legal Support, a company that provides legal services, sued Gwire.  Outcome unknown.

 Esquire Solutions, a company that provides legal services, sued Gwire.  Outcome unknown.

 Okamura, the 5’3” 126 pound man Gwire punched.

Harrill, the 71 year old man Gwire punched when Gwire was 50.

Assault & Battery – Cases in Marin and San Francisco - further details:

While Gwire beat the criminal charges in Marin, I have read some of the transcripts, and believe he flagrantly deceived the court.  The following discusses both the events and why I believe that Gwire’s testimony was both false and caused him to be found not guilty.

Here is the police report statement of Mr. Fonte, a third party witness in the San Francisco case:

"He was standing in line at the parking garage cashier booth when he heard Gwire saying something to Okamura [5’3”, 126 pounds, according to the police report]. Gwire then punched Okamura in the face and then ‘For no reason’ also punched Harrill [the 71 year old man] in the face. Okamura fell backward after being punched and hit his head against a pole.  Fonte then tried to verbally intercede by asking Gwire to stop punching the men. Gwire then turned toward Fonte and said ‘If you want to be #3, I'll lay you out too.’  Fonte said he felt that Gwire was going to try to punch him also, but numerous people in the crowd were coming forward insisting that the confrontation stop.” 

In the Marin criminal case, the woman who alleged Gwire punched her in the face testified as follows (this non-sequential Q&A begins with Gwire’s allegedly punching her friend):

Q. And do you remember. . . how many times he was punched?

A. Six. I saw the first punch and crawled over to the driver’s side of the car and got out and started yelling, “Please stop.”

Q. What happened when you yelled at the defendant to please stop?

A. He punched me in the face.

Q. Was there a particular location in the face where you were punched?

A. My mouth.

Q. After you were punched, what did you do next?

A. I was quite stunned and I felt my mouth was swelling and I felt that my tooth was gone.  I started walking towards some people that were watching and I asked them to please call the police.

Q. And did you see where the defendant went, if anywhere?

A. He got in his car and drove off. . .  I actually found my tooth on the ground and went immediately to the dentist that was there at the Corte Madera Town Center. . . My tooth was – the front of my tooth was – it had come off at an angle and the root was exposed and during treatment, Dr. Schmotter also found a fracture in the other front tooth.

Gwire’s testimony included: “I never punched anyone before, so I don’t know how hard I can punch someone.”  At the time Gwire said this, he had definitely and recently punched two people, the 126 pound man and the 71 year old man, as described in the San Francisco case above.  I have thought on whether Gwire could argue he was telling the truth and the “best” I could come up with for Gwire’s argument was that the timing of the two cases was: 1) the Marin violence first; 2) the SF violence second; 3) the Marin hearings.   Thus, he may argue that he meant that he hadn’t punched anyone before the Marin violence, though he had punched several people since (a fact he ommitted). 

In my view, depending on how kindly one wishes to interpret Gwire’s testimony, he either purposely lied, or accidentally misled the jurors, as (in my view) the reasonable juror would believe Gwire meant that he had never punched someone other than in the case being heard.  Regardless (again, in my opinion), it appears that Gwire’s San Francisco assault case was unknown to the jury in the Marin case, in part because it was never mentioned in the transcripts I could access, and also because they found him not guilty.  Had they been informed that Gwire had quite recently beat up the 126 pound man and the 71 year old man, this seems an unlikely result.

I do not know the outcome of the Marin civil assault and battery claims.  The court said that the records have been destroyed (Case #148529).  In the SF civil assault and battery cases, Gwire was found guilty (Case #770287 and 770286).  However, I believe he was able to have this result overturned on appeal.  I am not sure, as the records were confusing. 

Please note, these assault and battery charges were over sixteen years ago.  Regardless, I fully believe Gwire would use violence again, and that he intended for me to know that from his threats.