Roland Achtel
The following case, featuring attorney Roland Achtel, was also discussed HERE.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL CONSEL/INTAKE, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOST ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299
Name of Attorney:
Attorney Roland Achtel State Bar No. 215031
Other Attorneys
Olga Alvarez State Bar No. 222557
Jenny K. Goodman State Bar. No 177828
Jennifer W Chang State Bar No. 259643
Law Firm:
Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
550 W "C" St Ste 1500 San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 233-4100 Fax Number: (619) 231-4372
e-mail: achtel@sullivanhill.com
Location of Court:. Superior Court of California San Diego North County Dept. NC-2
Dates of Incident:. March 1, 2012 And For The Past One And a Half Years
Name of Case:. In Re David L. Bedolla Living Trust
Case No.: 37-2010-00150345-PR-TR-NC
INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is not filed with the intent to ask the Office of The Chief Trial Counsel for
legal advice; to correct errors, rulings, decision, or to issue an order in the case.
This Complaint if filed because we believed attorneys Roland Achtel, Olga Alvarez, Jenny
Goodman, and Jennifer Chang engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct that
infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of our father their former client and our
rights as petitioners in the above named action. These said acts by attorney Achtel and
the above named attorneys were not isolated; rather, they reflected a disturbing and
persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct
expected of licensed attorneys in the State of California.
The above named attorneys, violated the American Bar Association rules of professional
conduct; violations under Business and Professions Code; violations under California
Rules of Professional Conduct; California Civil Rules of Procedure; Local Court rules;
codes of conduct and ethics that are required guidelines for Members of the American Bar
Association.
The above named attorneys actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary process. The Board of
Governors has the power to discipline members as provided by law for a willful breach of
any of these rules.
The exhibits attached to this complaint will support our Complaint and the facts stated in
this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings.
HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT
In the instant, this is a Probate/Civil case about our father who is now diseased. Our father
who had been married to our mother for over 58-years before he passed away. Our father
and mother had nine biological children. There were no other marriages and no other
children.
Our father was emotionally and financially abused, neglected, denied medical care, and
died an early horrific death. He was dehydrated, had multiple bed sores, and was isolated
by our youngest sister Alejandra and our brother who is now dismissed from the complaint.
Alejandra and our brother exploited their relationship with our father, and through verbal
threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied our father to gift my
brother and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria, without Maria's
knowledge or consent.
Our father was diagnosed on May 14, 2007 with terminal cance. Alejandra the Respondent
did not inform any of the family members of our father's terminal diagnosis including our
father and mother.
Instead By May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra had taken our father to the Law Office of
Roland Achtel to draft a living trust under the name of David L. Bedolla Living Trust. No
one knew that our father was terminal or that Respondent Alejandra Bedolla had taken our
father to draft a living trust.
On May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra wrote a check to the Achtel Law Firm APC; check
number 548 from the Bank of America Bank account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V.
Bedolla for an amount of $ 1,200.00 signed with the name of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra
Bedolla send a cashier's check from her San Diego Credit Union Account to pay for the
trust.
Respondent Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC,
(b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of
America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David
Bedolla L. Living Trust. Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and
sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservator
and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust."
Based on attorney records Achtel Law Firm APC, staff member RHA wrote: under
description as a flat fee for preparation of a living trust; certificate of trust, power of
attorneys, designation of conservator (s); pour-over will (s); health care directive(s); one
quit claim deed; general assignment of personal property and other ancillary living trust
documents. The total charges were $ 2, 400.00 from David L. Bedolla and Maria V. Bedolla
Bank of America Account balance of $ 1,200.00.
Our father died on February 4, 2010, a few months later our mother was contacted by the
San Diego Assessors/Recorders Office about the name change of her home property her
main residence in Cardiff CA the home value at that time was $650.000. The home our
mother jointly owned with our father and marital community property. This is when we found
out that our youngest sister Alejandra had taken our father to the law office of Roland
Achtel and caused a living trust to be transcribed. Whereby Alejandra would be the sole
beneficiary of our father's marital community property estate.
We filed a Petition in Superior Court of California San Diego North County Division [July 15,
2010] in the Probate department to have the David. L. Bedolla Living Trust nullified and
have the property returned to the Bedolla estate. Alejandra Bedolla being the Respondent
in the Probate Petition.
The David L. Bedolla Living Trust was fraud and flawed, in many ways. The trust gifts
community property belonging to our mother [her main residence/ the Bedolla estate] to
Alejandra Bedolla.
• Alejandra made herself the "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving
herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David
L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservatorship and (g). the, "sole beneficiary
of the so-called David L. Bedolla estate."
• Though our father presumably paid for a conservatorship, none was established.
• Our mother did not quit claim deed the property to the trust.
• The Living Trust is a couple of dozen pages long (on or about 30-plus) written only in
English.
• Our father did not speak read or write English and only had a third grade education.
• A declaration of attorney Olga Alvarez states that she personally translated the trust to
our father. Yet our father never saw the trust until the day he signed it. On the day he
signed the trust our father was in the hospital gravely ill from En Vibrio Cholera and under
over twenty one strong medications.
• All trust communication, email, mail, calls, faxes, translations with the Achtel law firm were
made by Alejandra Bedolla not our father. All and other means of communication was
conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our
father David L. Bedolla.
Respondent Alejandra Bedolla is being represented by attorney Roland Achtel and Olga
alvarez from the onset of this present action. Attorney Achtel and attorney Olga Alvarez
joined the law firm of Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel prior to representing
Alejandra Bedolla.
Olga Alvarez
Blogger note: Sullivan Hill attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez were named San
Diego Top Attorney Semi-Finalists for The San Diego Daily Transcript’s 2011 Top
Attorneys. Achtel and Alvarez were recognized in the Estate Planning/Probate & Trust
category.
Further Attorney Roland Achtel has brought in two additional attorneys into the litigation
Attorney Jenny K. Goodman and Jennifer Chang. We the Petitioners in the above named
action are representing ourselves.
We believe that attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K.
Goodman, Notary Public/paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire law firm of Sullivan Hill
failed to evaluate possible conflict of interest, e.g., within the guidelines of Cal Rules of
Prof Cond 3–310 and the American Bar Association amend. Model Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.10(a). We believe these above named attorneys [Roland Achtel and Olga
Alvarez] personally represented Respondent Alejandra Bedolla in transcribing the living
trust that is the center of this dispute. As noted in Petitioners Trial Brief Olga Alvarez,
Audrey Amaral and Roland Achtel will be called as "witnesses" in this upcoming trial.
We believe these attorneys [Roland Achtel & Olga Alvarez] accepted the funds from our
fathers checking account from checks handwritten by Respondent Alejandra Bedolla. We
believe that while our father was presumably the client of Olga Alvarez and Roland Achtel
all phone, oral, written, faxed, emailed, mailed, and any other means of communication was
conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our
father.
We believe our father did not have attorney representation because attorney Olga Alvarez
and Roland Achtel were representing Respondent Alejandra Bedolla with our fathers funds
from our father's checking account. Attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez did not
followed the ACTEL or the CEB Rule Model Guide status. Now both of these attorneys are
representing Alejandra Bedolla in this present action.
Based on the above prongs and elements Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez, Jenny
Goodman and Jennifer Chang have violated multiple rules of the ABA and CA codes of
Conduct Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for attorneys.
Attorney Achtel represented Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza in the
same action.
Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently contradicted the facts and given false testimony
before the judges and in the court filings. Attorney Achtel has filed declarations stating that
all parties have, "meet and conferred" in all of the CMC hearings when this has never
happened. There were no physical, phone, mails or email communications in regards to
any meet and confer as required by the statute.
Prior to filing a CMC and Motion to Compel a 'meet and confer' was mandatory and a
requirement by the local rules and California CCP codes before filing a CMC and a Motion
to Compel. The only contact attorney Achtel has made has been sending bully letters and
emails to Petitioners. Last bully letter dated January 12, 2012 where he is accusing
Petitioner Silvia Peters of, "improper conduct and a pattern of illicit activity" and threatened
Petitioner with "court admonitions and sanctions".
Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently mislead the court claiming he has not been served
with documents to which he has been served. Most recently attorney Achtel gave false
testimony before the court and submitted documents under penalty of perjury stating he
was never served with Petitioners reply to the March 1, 2012 Motion to Compel hearing.
When in fact he had been served with all the documents and the proof of services was filed
with the court.
Attorney Roland Achtel made Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza sign
a contractual agreement in which he informed them he had a conflict of interest but
guaranteed that they did not have to worry because the case would never go to trial.
Attorney Achtel did not conduct discovery for the trial in a year and a half and gave false
testimony to the court many times about not being property served with Petitioners
documents.
Attorney Roland Acthel is seeking to delay the trial by making motions to extend trial dates,
claiming he is never served with document, that Petitioners are delaying the process. Even
when attorney Achtel motions were previously denied by judge Powazek . Attorney Achtel
continued to make the same motions and same allegations that were overruled by judge
Powazek time after time.
Attorney Roland Acthel may claim that he has fully disclosed his conflict of interests to his
present and former clients. However our father is diseased and could have never agreed
to these conflict of interests. We the Petitioners in this action have not agreed to the
conflict of interests. Attorneys Achtel and Alvarez conflict of interests are at the root of our
father's neglect, denial of medical care, abuse and early death. Regardless he is in
violation of multiple laws and so is his entire law firm of Sullivan Hill, based on the above
elements and prongs.
Our case was previously assigned to Honorable Judge Harry L. Powazek who reviewed the
case for one year and a half. During the time there was a discovery cutoff date of October
28, 2010. Parties were to submit detailed brief and list of witnesses by November 18, 2010.
Judge Powazek had previously denied Defendant's attorney Motion for Extension of Time
and motions for production of documents. The case rotated to Judge Richard G. Cline,
March 1, 2012 was our first hearing with Judge Cline.
On March 1, 2012, Defendant's attorney Roland Achtel made a motion to Compel
Interrogatories/ discovery documents, an Ex Parte Application and a CMC hearing for the
same day and time 2:30 p.m.
Attorney Roland Achtel submitted a false declaration under penalty of perjury claiming the
Petitioners had not filed a reply to his motion to compel. That was false but Judge Powazek
extended and continued the motion for attorney Roland Achtel [this tactic was done to
insure that judge Powazek who was familiar case did not hear Attorney's Achtel Motion to
Compel. As a result of attorney Achtel false written and oral testimony we were sanctioned
$ 1,200 by Judge Cline who was returning from vacation and was not familiar with the case.
The Motion to Compel was based primary [also oral arguments] on the allegations that we
were late on serving the replies to his interrogatories and because we were late we lost our
right to object to the questions. At the hearing even Judge Cline acknowledged that we
were not late.
In Attorney Roland Achtel second argument in his Motion to Compel he alleged on the
pleading papers that our answered interrogatories were not complete and introduced the
first set of interrogatories reply as evidence. To begin with, there were two consecutive
responses that followed the first set and the later were full and complete. Yet, attorney
Achtel wrote and gave false testimony to the court .
CCP codes requires that a motion to compel must be accompanied by an attorney
declaration that says that the parties 'meet and conferred.' This was not the case and our
written argument showed that even Attorney Achtel's own exhibits showed that he did not
'meet and confer' before filing the motions. [Achtel Exhibit I & H]. There was also a mutual
stipulation by Petitioners and attorney Goodman to meet and confer prior to filing the
Motion to Compel.
In addition, California Rules of Court Rule 335. Format of discovery motions (a) [Separate
statement required] Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the
responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions
that require a separate statement include:
(1) a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission;
(2) a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories;
(3) a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or
tangible things.
Attorney Achtel did not file a Separate Statement with the moving Motion to Compel
Interrogatories and Production of Records as required by the California Rules of the Court.
Attorney Achtel lack of filing of a Separate Statement accompanied with his Motion to
Compel as required by California Rules of Court §§ 0331-0341; California Rules of Court
Rule 335. (b) prejudiced us; denied us; violated our due process rights to justice and have
meaningful access to the court. Attorney Achtel failure to file a Separate Statement denied
us the opportunity to respond to each and every document he alleged was not provided for
him or to respond to the questions he said were not answered.
The Separate Statement must be submitted with the motion by the moving party. We were
not the moving party. [CRC 3.1020(a)
The rules state that:
"A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion
that sets forth all the information necessary to understand each discovery demand and all
the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so
that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full
demand and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate
statement by reference. [CRC 3.1020(c).] [CRC 3.1020(c).]"
Attorney Achtel did not file a Statement on his Motion to Compel Interrogatories and he
clumped up demand for Inspection of records into the Motion to Compel Interrogatories.
Yet he did not provide the statements as required by CRC 3.1020 (c). He did not state
what answers he felt were incomplete or what documents he was seeking. Petitioners filed
a response to his two allegations, in which attorney Achtel claimed: (a). He was served late
(b). the responses were incomplete. It was impossible to address in detail what it was he
was seeking or what responses were not answered. When attorney Achtel did not file the
statements are required by CRC 3.1020 (c). As a result of attorney's Achtel's errors and
false written and oral testimony we were sanctions $ 1,200.
When we walked outside the courtroom, attorney Achtel had a big smirk on his face and
said, "oh yeah those records. Just send me a letter that says the records you sent me, are
all the records you have."
On the second motion for Production of Documents for Maria Bedolla and followed after
the Motion to Compel. Attorney Achtel was making this ex parte motion as well as the
motion to compel well passed the discovery date of October 28, 2011. Well, after
Honorable Judge Harry L. Powazek had denied his motions for continuance and motion for
discovery after the cutoff date of October 28, 2011.
On the ex parte motion before the court [March 1, 2012] attorney Achtel was seeking the
records from San Diego County Adult Protective Services for Maria Bedolla a person not a
party to this action.
Attorney Achtel:
• Filed a subpoena on behalf of Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011,
for the records of Maria Bedolla. Attorney Achtel was not representing Roberto and
Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011 when he wrote and sent the subpoena.
• Roberto and Graciela were no longer parties to the action when Attorney Achtel filed the
Ex Parte Application with Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza's name in the subpoena and
proof of service.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application for release of records for Maria Bedolla and
had a release of records form signed by Maria Trinidad Villagomez AKA Maria Villagomez.
The names did not match.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the motion for continuance was denied
by Hon. Judge Harry L. Powazek.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the October 28, 2011 cutoff date.
• Attorney Achtel did not seek leave of the Court before he filed either the Ex Parte
Application or the Motion to Compel .
Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional
Conduct Ruel 3-310 (1) (2) (a) (b) (3) (4) when they were supposed to represent our
father's interests. Instead, they represented Alejandra's interests with our father's money.
They are now representing Alejandra and were representing our sister Graciela and
brother Roberto and their own interests.
Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional
Conduct Rule 3-310 (c) (1) (2) (3) when they did not disclose their conflict of interests and
did not have full consent of all parties in the litigation . They represented more than one
client (1) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (2)
accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the
clients actually conflict.
Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule
5.200 of Trial Conduct;
(A). In which they presented documentation that was not consistent with the truth to the
court.
(B). They filed documents to mislead the judge, by false statements under penalty of
perjury and oral arguments on the court records Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez;
Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman will violate Rule 5-210 at the upcoming trial scheduled
for on or about June 2012. They are planning to defend Alejandra Bedolla and themselves
in the Living Trust. They will have to testify as to the flaws of the Living Trust they
transcribed. These said attorneys will question themselves and testify on their own behalf.
They will have to question their former clients, and protect the interests of my father who
they claimed they represented at trial.
Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule
1.10 in that they all became part of this litigation and represented themselves, (1) more
than one client (2) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (3)
accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the
the clients actually conflict.
Rule 1.10 simply states:
v Rule 1.10 Imputation Of Conflicts Of Interest: General Rule (a) While lawyers are
associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them
practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the
prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a
significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining
lawyers in the firm.
American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
Formal Opinion 92-367 October 16, 1992 under:
"The Committee concludes that a lawyer's examining the lawyer's client as an adverse
witness, or conducting third party discovery of a client, will ordinarily present a conflict of
interest that is disqualifying absent consent of one or both of the clients involved
(depending, as will be explained, on the nature and degree of the conflict), and that the
individual lawyer's disqualification will, again in the absence of consent, be imputed to all
other lawyers in the lawyer's firm as well. "
Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys has engaged in an egregious
pattern of malicious and capricious misconduct and manner that infringed the constitutional
rights of our father and our right to have access to justice and has made a mockery of the
judiciary system. Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys disrespected and
disregarded court ruling made by Judge Powazek and continues to bring up defenses and
motions that have been overruled by the court, over and over.
These incidents are not isolated; rather, have been systemic, willful and ongoing for over a
year and a half. They reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is
completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of attorney licensed to practice
law in the state of California.
Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman; Notary
Public/ paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire Sullivan Hill law firm should have never
been involved in a case where they had multiple conflicts of interests and divided loyalties.
They represented our father in a flawed Living Trust, and represented our sister at the
same time. After we filed the Petition he represented our Sisters Alejandra Bedolla,
Graciela Meza and our brother Roberto Bedolla and themselves in the same litigation.
Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman should
have been disqualified and reported to the American Bar Association long time ago.
We, Silvia Peters, Margarita Frias and Jesus Bedolla declare;
We are the sons and daughters of descendant David Bedolla Lemus and Petitioners in this
action. Except as to those matters we state on information and belief, and as to those
matters we believe them to be true, if called before a Court, we could and would testify
competently from our own personal knowledge as to the facts stated herein.
We, declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct that this declaration was executed on March 9, 2012.
Dated:. March 9, 2012
VERIFICATION
I, _________________, am the Petitioner. I have personally reviewed and am familiar with
the records, files and proceedings described in and the subject of the present petition and
know the facts set forth to be true and correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
March 9, 2012 ____________________________________
Petitioner
Jennifer Chang
came to Sullivan Hill in Jan. 2011. Previously, she was an attorney at Sempra Energy and
Analyst at DaimlerChrysler. Education: University of San Diego School of Law and Duke
University
Sullivan Hill attorney Jenny K. Goodman has experience defending professionals, including
attorneys, real estate professionals and stockbrokers, for malpractice.
The following case, featuring attorney Roland Achtel, was also discussed HERE.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL CONSEL/INTAKE, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH HILL STREET, LOST ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015-2299
Name of Attorney:
Attorney Roland Achtel State Bar No. 215031
Other Attorneys
Olga Alvarez State Bar No. 222557
Jenny K. Goodman State Bar. No 177828
Jennifer W Chang State Bar No. 259643
Law Firm:
Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel
550 W "C" St Ste 1500 San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 233-4100 Fax Number: (619) 231-4372
e-mail: achtel@sullivanhill.com
Location of Court:. Superior Court of California San Diego North County Dept. NC-2
Dates of Incident:. March 1, 2012 And For The Past One And a Half Years
Name of Case:. In Re David L. Bedolla Living Trust
Case No.: 37-2010-00150345-PR-TR-NC
INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is not filed with the intent to ask the Office of The Chief Trial Counsel for
legal advice; to correct errors, rulings, decision, or to issue an order in the case.
This Complaint if filed because we believed attorneys Roland Achtel, Olga Alvarez, Jenny
Goodman, and Jennifer Chang engaged in an egregious pattern of misconduct that
infringed the constitutional and statutory rights of our father their former client and our
rights as petitioners in the above named action. These said acts by attorney Achtel and
the above named attorneys were not isolated; rather, they reflected a disturbing and
persistent pattern of conduct that is completely at odds with the standard of conduct
expected of licensed attorneys in the State of California.
The above named attorneys, violated the American Bar Association rules of professional
conduct; violations under Business and Professions Code; violations under California
Rules of Professional Conduct; California Civil Rules of Procedure; Local Court rules;
codes of conduct and ethics that are required guidelines for Members of the American Bar
Association.
The above named attorneys actions were negligent, in bad faith, and violated public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary process. The Board of
Governors has the power to discipline members as provided by law for a willful breach of
any of these rules.
The exhibits attached to this complaint will support our Complaint and the facts stated in
this complaint as true and correct as to the event and proceedings.
HISTORY AND EVENTS THAT LEAD TO THIS COMPLAINT
In the instant, this is a Probate/Civil case about our father who is now diseased. Our father
who had been married to our mother for over 58-years before he passed away. Our father
and mother had nine biological children. There were no other marriages and no other
children.
Our father was emotionally and financially abused, neglected, denied medical care, and
died an early horrific death. He was dehydrated, had multiple bed sores, and was isolated
by our youngest sister Alejandra and our brother who is now dismissed from the complaint.
Alejandra and our brother exploited their relationship with our father, and through verbal
threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied our father to gift my
brother and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria, without Maria's
knowledge or consent.
Our father was diagnosed on May 14, 2007 with terminal cance. Alejandra the Respondent
did not inform any of the family members of our father's terminal diagnosis including our
father and mother.
Instead By May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra had taken our father to the Law Office of
Roland Achtel to draft a living trust under the name of David L. Bedolla Living Trust. No
one knew that our father was terminal or that Respondent Alejandra Bedolla had taken our
father to draft a living trust.
On May 25, 2007 Respondent Alejandra wrote a check to the Achtel Law Firm APC; check
number 548 from the Bank of America Bank account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V.
Bedolla for an amount of $ 1,200.00 signed with the name of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra
Bedolla send a cashier's check from her San Diego Credit Union Account to pay for the
trust.
Respondent Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC,
(b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of
America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David
Bedolla L. Living Trust. Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and
sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservator
and (g). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust."
Based on attorney records Achtel Law Firm APC, staff member RHA wrote: under
description as a flat fee for preparation of a living trust; certificate of trust, power of
attorneys, designation of conservator (s); pour-over will (s); health care directive(s); one
quit claim deed; general assignment of personal property and other ancillary living trust
documents. The total charges were $ 2, 400.00 from David L. Bedolla and Maria V. Bedolla
Bank of America Account balance of $ 1,200.00.
Our father died on February 4, 2010, a few months later our mother was contacted by the
San Diego Assessors/Recorders Office about the name change of her home property her
main residence in Cardiff CA the home value at that time was $650.000. The home our
mother jointly owned with our father and marital community property. This is when we found
out that our youngest sister Alejandra had taken our father to the law office of Roland
Achtel and caused a living trust to be transcribed. Whereby Alejandra would be the sole
beneficiary of our father's marital community property estate.
We filed a Petition in Superior Court of California San Diego North County Division [July 15,
2010] in the Probate department to have the David. L. Bedolla Living Trust nullified and
have the property returned to the Bedolla estate. Alejandra Bedolla being the Respondent
in the Probate Petition.
The David L. Bedolla Living Trust was fraud and flawed, in many ways. The trust gifts
community property belonging to our mother [her main residence/ the Bedolla estate] to
Alejandra Bedolla.
• Alejandra made herself the "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving
herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David
L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive (f) Conservatorship and (g). the, "sole beneficiary
of the so-called David L. Bedolla estate."
• Though our father presumably paid for a conservatorship, none was established.
• Our mother did not quit claim deed the property to the trust.
• The Living Trust is a couple of dozen pages long (on or about 30-plus) written only in
English.
• Our father did not speak read or write English and only had a third grade education.
• A declaration of attorney Olga Alvarez states that she personally translated the trust to
our father. Yet our father never saw the trust until the day he signed it. On the day he
signed the trust our father was in the hospital gravely ill from En Vibrio Cholera and under
over twenty one strong medications.
• All trust communication, email, mail, calls, faxes, translations with the Achtel law firm were
made by Alejandra Bedolla not our father. All and other means of communication was
conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our
father David L. Bedolla.
Respondent Alejandra Bedolla is being represented by attorney Roland Achtel and Olga
alvarez from the onset of this present action. Attorney Achtel and attorney Olga Alvarez
joined the law firm of Sullivan Hill Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel prior to representing
Alejandra Bedolla.
Olga Alvarez
Blogger note: Sullivan Hill attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez were named San
Diego Top Attorney Semi-Finalists for The San Diego Daily Transcript’s 2011 Top
Attorneys. Achtel and Alvarez were recognized in the Estate Planning/Probate & Trust
category.
Further Attorney Roland Achtel has brought in two additional attorneys into the litigation
Attorney Jenny K. Goodman and Jennifer Chang. We the Petitioners in the above named
action are representing ourselves.
We believe that attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K.
Goodman, Notary Public/paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire law firm of Sullivan Hill
failed to evaluate possible conflict of interest, e.g., within the guidelines of Cal Rules of
Prof Cond 3–310 and the American Bar Association amend. Model Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.10(a). We believe these above named attorneys [Roland Achtel and Olga
Alvarez] personally represented Respondent Alejandra Bedolla in transcribing the living
trust that is the center of this dispute. As noted in Petitioners Trial Brief Olga Alvarez,
Audrey Amaral and Roland Achtel will be called as "witnesses" in this upcoming trial.
We believe these attorneys [Roland Achtel & Olga Alvarez] accepted the funds from our
fathers checking account from checks handwritten by Respondent Alejandra Bedolla. We
believe that while our father was presumably the client of Olga Alvarez and Roland Achtel
all phone, oral, written, faxed, emailed, mailed, and any other means of communication was
conducted between these above named attorneys and Alejandra Bedolla and not our
father.
We believe our father did not have attorney representation because attorney Olga Alvarez
and Roland Achtel were representing Respondent Alejandra Bedolla with our fathers funds
from our father's checking account. Attorneys Roland Achtel and Olga alvarez did not
followed the ACTEL or the CEB Rule Model Guide status. Now both of these attorneys are
representing Alejandra Bedolla in this present action.
Based on the above prongs and elements Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez, Jenny
Goodman and Jennifer Chang have violated multiple rules of the ABA and CA codes of
Conduct Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for attorneys.
Attorney Achtel represented Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza in the
same action.
Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently contradicted the facts and given false testimony
before the judges and in the court filings. Attorney Achtel has filed declarations stating that
all parties have, "meet and conferred" in all of the CMC hearings when this has never
happened. There were no physical, phone, mails or email communications in regards to
any meet and confer as required by the statute.
Prior to filing a CMC and Motion to Compel a 'meet and confer' was mandatory and a
requirement by the local rules and California CCP codes before filing a CMC and a Motion
to Compel. The only contact attorney Achtel has made has been sending bully letters and
emails to Petitioners. Last bully letter dated January 12, 2012 where he is accusing
Petitioner Silvia Peters of, "improper conduct and a pattern of illicit activity" and threatened
Petitioner with "court admonitions and sanctions".
Attorney Roland Achtel has consistently mislead the court claiming he has not been served
with documents to which he has been served. Most recently attorney Achtel gave false
testimony before the court and submitted documents under penalty of perjury stating he
was never served with Petitioners reply to the March 1, 2012 Motion to Compel hearing.
When in fact he had been served with all the documents and the proof of services was filed
with the court.
Attorney Roland Achtel made Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza sign
a contractual agreement in which he informed them he had a conflict of interest but
guaranteed that they did not have to worry because the case would never go to trial.
Attorney Achtel did not conduct discovery for the trial in a year and a half and gave false
testimony to the court many times about not being property served with Petitioners
documents.
Attorney Roland Acthel is seeking to delay the trial by making motions to extend trial dates,
claiming he is never served with document, that Petitioners are delaying the process. Even
when attorney Achtel motions were previously denied by judge Powazek . Attorney Achtel
continued to make the same motions and same allegations that were overruled by judge
Powazek time after time.
Attorney Roland Acthel may claim that he has fully disclosed his conflict of interests to his
present and former clients. However our father is diseased and could have never agreed
to these conflict of interests. We the Petitioners in this action have not agreed to the
conflict of interests. Attorneys Achtel and Alvarez conflict of interests are at the root of our
father's neglect, denial of medical care, abuse and early death. Regardless he is in
violation of multiple laws and so is his entire law firm of Sullivan Hill, based on the above
elements and prongs.
Our case was previously assigned to Honorable Judge Harry L. Powazek who reviewed the
case for one year and a half. During the time there was a discovery cutoff date of October
28, 2010. Parties were to submit detailed brief and list of witnesses by November 18, 2010.
Judge Powazek had previously denied Defendant's attorney Motion for Extension of Time
and motions for production of documents. The case rotated to Judge Richard G. Cline,
March 1, 2012 was our first hearing with Judge Cline.
On March 1, 2012, Defendant's attorney Roland Achtel made a motion to Compel
Interrogatories/ discovery documents, an Ex Parte Application and a CMC hearing for the
same day and time 2:30 p.m.
Attorney Roland Achtel submitted a false declaration under penalty of perjury claiming the
Petitioners had not filed a reply to his motion to compel. That was false but Judge Powazek
extended and continued the motion for attorney Roland Achtel [this tactic was done to
insure that judge Powazek who was familiar case did not hear Attorney's Achtel Motion to
Compel. As a result of attorney Achtel false written and oral testimony we were sanctioned
$ 1,200 by Judge Cline who was returning from vacation and was not familiar with the case.
The Motion to Compel was based primary [also oral arguments] on the allegations that we
were late on serving the replies to his interrogatories and because we were late we lost our
right to object to the questions. At the hearing even Judge Cline acknowledged that we
were not late.
In Attorney Roland Achtel second argument in his Motion to Compel he alleged on the
pleading papers that our answered interrogatories were not complete and introduced the
first set of interrogatories reply as evidence. To begin with, there were two consecutive
responses that followed the first set and the later were full and complete. Yet, attorney
Achtel wrote and gave false testimony to the court .
CCP codes requires that a motion to compel must be accompanied by an attorney
declaration that says that the parties 'meet and conferred.' This was not the case and our
written argument showed that even Attorney Achtel's own exhibits showed that he did not
'meet and confer' before filing the motions. [Achtel Exhibit I & H]. There was also a mutual
stipulation by Petitioners and attorney Goodman to meet and confer prior to filing the
Motion to Compel.
In addition, California Rules of Court Rule 335. Format of discovery motions (a) [Separate
statement required] Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the
responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions
that require a separate statement include:
(1) a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission;
(2) a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories;
(3) a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or
tangible things.
Attorney Achtel did not file a Separate Statement with the moving Motion to Compel
Interrogatories and Production of Records as required by the California Rules of the Court.
Attorney Achtel lack of filing of a Separate Statement accompanied with his Motion to
Compel as required by California Rules of Court §§ 0331-0341; California Rules of Court
Rule 335. (b) prejudiced us; denied us; violated our due process rights to justice and have
meaningful access to the court. Attorney Achtel failure to file a Separate Statement denied
us the opportunity to respond to each and every document he alleged was not provided for
him or to respond to the questions he said were not answered.
The Separate Statement must be submitted with the motion by the moving party. We were
not the moving party. [CRC 3.1020(a)
The rules state that:
"A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion
that sets forth all the information necessary to understand each discovery demand and all
the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so
that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full
demand and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate
statement by reference. [CRC 3.1020(c).] [CRC 3.1020(c).]"
Attorney Achtel did not file a Statement on his Motion to Compel Interrogatories and he
clumped up demand for Inspection of records into the Motion to Compel Interrogatories.
Yet he did not provide the statements as required by CRC 3.1020 (c). He did not state
what answers he felt were incomplete or what documents he was seeking. Petitioners filed
a response to his two allegations, in which attorney Achtel claimed: (a). He was served late
(b). the responses were incomplete. It was impossible to address in detail what it was he
was seeking or what responses were not answered. When attorney Achtel did not file the
statements are required by CRC 3.1020 (c). As a result of attorney's Achtel's errors and
false written and oral testimony we were sanctions $ 1,200.
When we walked outside the courtroom, attorney Achtel had a big smirk on his face and
said, "oh yeah those records. Just send me a letter that says the records you sent me, are
all the records you have."
On the second motion for Production of Documents for Maria Bedolla and followed after
the Motion to Compel. Attorney Achtel was making this ex parte motion as well as the
motion to compel well passed the discovery date of October 28, 2011. Well, after
Honorable Judge Harry L. Powazek had denied his motions for continuance and motion for
discovery after the cutoff date of October 28, 2011.
On the ex parte motion before the court [March 1, 2012] attorney Achtel was seeking the
records from San Diego County Adult Protective Services for Maria Bedolla a person not a
party to this action.
Attorney Achtel:
• Filed a subpoena on behalf of Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011,
for the records of Maria Bedolla. Attorney Achtel was not representing Roberto and
Graciela Meza on December 7, 2011 when he wrote and sent the subpoena.
• Roberto and Graciela were no longer parties to the action when Attorney Achtel filed the
Ex Parte Application with Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza's name in the subpoena and
proof of service.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application for release of records for Maria Bedolla and
had a release of records form signed by Maria Trinidad Villagomez AKA Maria Villagomez.
The names did not match.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the motion for continuance was denied
by Hon. Judge Harry L. Powazek.
• Attorney Achtel filed the Ex Parte Application after the October 28, 2011 cutoff date.
• Attorney Achtel did not seek leave of the Court before he filed either the Ex Parte
Application or the Motion to Compel .
Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional
Conduct Ruel 3-310 (1) (2) (a) (b) (3) (4) when they were supposed to represent our
father's interests. Instead, they represented Alejandra's interests with our father's money.
They are now representing Alejandra and were representing our sister Graciela and
brother Roberto and their own interests.
Attorney Roland Achtel and Olga Alvarez violated the California Rules of Professional
Conduct Rule 3-310 (c) (1) (2) (3) when they did not disclose their conflict of interests and
did not have full consent of all parties in the litigation . They represented more than one
client (1) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (2)
accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the
clients actually conflict.
Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule
5.200 of Trial Conduct;
(A). In which they presented documentation that was not consistent with the truth to the
court.
(B). They filed documents to mislead the judge, by false statements under penalty of
perjury and oral arguments on the court records Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez;
Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman will violate Rule 5-210 at the upcoming trial scheduled
for on or about June 2012. They are planning to defend Alejandra Bedolla and themselves
in the Living Trust. They will have to testify as to the flaws of the Living Trust they
transcribed. These said attorneys will question themselves and testify on their own behalf.
They will have to question their former clients, and protect the interests of my father who
they claimed they represented at trial.
Attorney Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jeniffer Chang and Jenny Goodman violated Rule
1.10 in that they all became part of this litigation and represented themselves, (1) more
than one client (2) in a matter in which the interests of the clients potentially conflict and (3)
accepted representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the
the clients actually conflict.
Rule 1.10 simply states:
v Rule 1.10 Imputation Of Conflicts Of Interest: General Rule (a) While lawyers are
associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them
practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7 or 1.9, unless the
prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a
significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining
lawyers in the firm.
American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
Formal Opinion 92-367 October 16, 1992 under:
"The Committee concludes that a lawyer's examining the lawyer's client as an adverse
witness, or conducting third party discovery of a client, will ordinarily present a conflict of
interest that is disqualifying absent consent of one or both of the clients involved
(depending, as will be explained, on the nature and degree of the conflict), and that the
individual lawyer's disqualification will, again in the absence of consent, be imputed to all
other lawyers in the lawyer's firm as well. "
Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys has engaged in an egregious
pattern of malicious and capricious misconduct and manner that infringed the constitutional
rights of our father and our right to have access to justice and has made a mockery of the
judiciary system. Attorney Roland Achtel and the above named attorneys disrespected and
disregarded court ruling made by Judge Powazek and continues to bring up defenses and
motions that have been overruled by the court, over and over.
These incidents are not isolated; rather, have been systemic, willful and ongoing for over a
year and a half. They reflected a disturbing and persistent pattern of conduct that is
completely at odds with the standard of conduct expected of attorney licensed to practice
law in the state of California.
Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman; Notary
Public/ paralegal Audrey Amaral and the entire Sullivan Hill law firm should have never
been involved in a case where they had multiple conflicts of interests and divided loyalties.
They represented our father in a flawed Living Trust, and represented our sister at the
same time. After we filed the Petition he represented our Sisters Alejandra Bedolla,
Graciela Meza and our brother Roberto Bedolla and themselves in the same litigation.
Attorneys Roland Achtel; Olga Alvarez; Jennifer W. Chang; Jenny K. Goodman should
have been disqualified and reported to the American Bar Association long time ago.
We, Silvia Peters, Margarita Frias and Jesus Bedolla declare;
We are the sons and daughters of descendant David Bedolla Lemus and Petitioners in this
action. Except as to those matters we state on information and belief, and as to those
matters we believe them to be true, if called before a Court, we could and would testify
competently from our own personal knowledge as to the facts stated herein.
We, declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct that this declaration was executed on March 9, 2012.
Dated:. March 9, 2012
VERIFICATION
I, _________________, am the Petitioner. I have personally reviewed and am familiar with
the records, files and proceedings described in and the subject of the present petition and
know the facts set forth to be true and correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
March 9, 2012 ____________________________________
Petitioner
Jennifer Chang
came to Sullivan Hill in Jan. 2011. Previously, she was an attorney at Sempra Energy and
Analyst at DaimlerChrysler. Education: University of San Diego School of Law and Duke
University
Sullivan Hill attorney Jenny K. Goodman has experience defending professionals, including
attorneys, real estate professionals and stockbrokers, for malpractice.
Attorney Roland Achtel
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Attorney Mark Bresee
Bresee and Werlin
Bresee OAH hearing
Bresee and school
attorneys
Bresee and Werlin
Bresee OAH hearing
Bresee and school
attorneys
School Attorneys