Wednesday, March 27, 2013

书如其人,人又何如(回答David Rasmussen对我的书的评论)


下面这封信回答了David Rasmussen对我的《An Anatomy of Lying》一书的评论中提出的问题,并且谈了“书如其人,人又何如”这个问题。那本书是我10年前写的。

Dear David:

Thank you for your generous comment and rating of my book on amazon.com.

For your question, i.e., whether my politics is based on my U.S. experience and on profound truth or what I know to be wrong with China, I think the answer is both. My obvious and profound resonance with Ayn Rand, which must have something to do with our common experience of a dictator (Stalin for her and Mao for me) and America, may shine some light on that topic.

Since writing the book, I have gained some experience and a lot of respect for the small businesses, which comprise my clientele these days. I completely agree with your comment about shorter feedback loops. Alas, I didn't have that insight when writing the book.

Politics is a quirky thing and often cannot be reasonable. For me, the government today should focus on the educational system to pull up the bottom half, not just by handing out money, which only brews resentment. The money is there. The technology is there. However, the schools are still only offering trigonometry and algebra, vis-a-vis apprenticeship-type job training. It appears to me that when the options are available, families will make the best choice for their children. Yet, neither Democratic nor Republican party is doing anything. The government monopoly of trigonometry and algebra rules the day. The popularity of Obama is merely a show of the risk. Hopefully, reincarnations of Mao, Hitler, et al., are not the next.

Life is so profoundly and interesting that writing about it itself is reward sufficient. Seeing your comment is gravy on top. However, between lawyering and hosting a weekly talkshow in LA (in Chinese language I am afraid to an audience who overwhelmingly voted for Obama), I don't have time writing. When I was in China last summer interviewing a dissident, we talked about the lack of low level labor and the oversupply of college graduates there. When I later mentioned to the Voice of America reporter, who acted as my bodyguard (the police interference will automatically and immediately makes it an international incident), that I spend a lot of time writing pleadings and motions, he quipped: "That is also a waste of talent." In the final analysis, we all need money to pay our kids' piano lessons.

Thank you again for your review. If I had time, I would probably write about happiness, and the pursuit thereof.

Best,

Pujie

----------------------------------------------------

Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars

Well written and thought provoking

By David P. Rasmussen

This is a personal book filled with personal stories and personal opinions. That the writer is Chinese born brings a unique slant that makes the stories more interesting. He is obviously intelligent and obviously has seen preferential treatment to others, especially as a PhD student. His work experience is broad and deep. The book is best when it is relating these personal stories-- the first half of the book.

Everyone will understand and relate to the stories of incompetent management. The conclusions are often profound.

The writing contains the grammar errors typical of a Chinese speaker. This did not bother me, but may bother some. There were other little errors as well. Ronald Reagan was nearly age 70 when he became president, not 60.

The reference to the quality theory of Edward Deming was spot on. The key to quality is to provide feedback loops between producers and users. If one is forced to look at things from the end-users perspective, then knowledge will be gained. From my perspective, small business needs needs encouragement for that reason, as only with smaller businesses are the feedback loops short. Rather than this conclusion, the author sides with big-business Republican corporatism, ala GE, and cowboy heroes like Jack Welch, Alan Greenspan and Arnold Scharzenegger.

That the author considers Republican war policy and economic dogma to be "correct" is consistent with Ayn Rand and her thinly veiled rebuke of Russian policies. One has to consider the very strong anti-China filters that the author constructs in his view of the world, just as the rest of us deal with our own filters in our view of the world. The talking points of California Republicans, circa 2005, which the author repeats endlessly strike me as not helpful and tend to detract from his larger points. My question to the author is whether his politics is based on his U.S. experience and on profound truth or is it based on what he knows to be wrong with China?

If we come to understand that we filter out a great deal of information in our daily lives, and we often believe what we prefer to believe, then the author has succeeded in teaching us something valuable. This is point of the book, I think, and despite the politics, the book mostly succeeds.

再谈为什么要避开提供担保的律师


在美国,很多人认为律师都是骗子。至少,我不认为我是骗子,而且我也认识很多诚实的律师,肯定他们不是骗子。再者,美国这个社会,和别的国家比较,是更加讲理的社会。究其原因,就是作为一个整体,美国的律师对美国社会的贡献,优于别的国家的律师。那么,在这种情况下,为什么还有那么多人都认为美国律师都是骗子呢?

其实,答案很简单。归结起来就是:要想让律师做高质量的工作,不像一般人想象那样便宜。在这种情况下,如果你想逼迫律师降价,那么你就很可能找那些对你将计就计,向你对症下药,表面上向你提供廉价服务的律师。从另外一个角度讲,律师的工作不是任何人都可以做好的。如果一个人想让一个好律师,组建一个好团队,为你做高质量的工作,这件事是由一定的成本的。如果客人一味地追求便宜,那么他就很可能以企图赚律师的便宜开始,结果以被律师赚便宜告终。

这个问题的表现形式很多。最简单的是有些人向律师压价,结果找到最便宜的律师。

我以H-1B工作签证为例,我们律师事务所受理这类案子,是因为我几十年前从学校里出来的时候,就和现在这些H-1B受益人一样,懵懵懂懂地开始闯世界。现在的我,很高兴能为他们做点事情。我们H-1B价格基本上是按照助理的费用定价,是很低的,而且公开登在网上。

我以前管理过大大小小很多公司的技术开发部门,对于提高部门的工作效率这方面,可以说是很专业的。我不觉得在H-1B的管理上,我还能有什么地方可以增加效率的。也就是说,如果一个律师的价格比我低,特别是低很多的话,我们可以排除这个律师效率比我高这个原因。除此之外,只有两种可能。一种是这个律师没完没了地亏本作业。如果一个人觉得,律师可以一直亏钱,然后还可以把律师事务所开下去的话,那我觉得那是另外一个问题。剩下来就只有一种可能,就是律师靠牺牲质量的代价,提供廉价服务。

换句话说,我不能想象一个律师如何比我还便宜很多,还保证质量。也就是说,如果你去雇一个比我贵的律师,可能会得到高质量工作(但不一定)。但是,如果你想砍价,雇比我便宜的律师,那么案子质量恐怕不会太高。

赚律师便宜的另外一种表现形式就是很多客人想让律师担保成功。我们还以H-1B为例。很多客人问:“如果不成功,你能不能退钱?”有人会说:“如果你不退钱,我怎么能知道你会对我负责。”我只好说:“我不退钱,就是要对你负责。”他们一般觉得我说的话,不是莫名其妙,就是强词夺理。他们之中很多人觉得这种说法不是在砍价,而是在维权。但是,所谓的律师担保,一般说来,只不过是失败以后退律师费。你的H-1B还是没有获得批准。如果你花5万律师费,雇这样的律师去打一个20万的官司,即便5万的律师费拿回来了,那20万的赔款,还是要你自己赔的。在这种情况下的担保,明智吗?

担保和砍价的效应其实是完全一样的。例如,2012年的H-1B拒绝率是17%。对于一个律师来说,如果他不顾及质量,恐怕也可以至少有50%的案子可以获得批准。一般提供担保的律师的收费,都不高于市场。有时还特别便宜。对于他们来说,就是如何用一半的律师费来把案子做出来。这样,他最后可能还会有盈余。如果像有些人想象的那样,律师会因为保证成功而超级全力工作,那么他很可能是用110%的价格,换来95%的批准率。换句话说,你给他100元,他花掉110元为你做案子,换得95元的律师费。这样的律师难道不是很傻吗?

这些律师特别会对有这类要求的客人将计就计。例如,他们会说:“你让我做你的案子,我就向你保证,不成功退款。你可以去找别的律师问问,看看他们敢不敢保证?”当别的律师不保证的时候,这些客人反而会觉得那些不能保证的律师缺乏信心,而会找那些提供保证的律师。

这件事,如果我们以诉讼为例,可能会说得更清楚。每天有50%的律师输官司。如果一个律师代表张三和李四,并且担保成功。按照50%的成功率,张三和李四之间只能有一个案子他会赢。但是,他把张三的案子给输了,张三的律师费就需要退还。用什么来付他办理张三案子的钱呢?当然要用李四缴的律师费。也就是说,如果你要求律师担保,如果赢了,你一半的律师费是让律师拿去为别人服务了;如果你输了,你的案子还是输了,虽然你可以把律师费给讨回来。当然,不是所有的律师都会依照合约,把钱还给你。有些律师还会以不同原因,不还钱给你;有些律师,因为钱已经花了,没有钱还你。读者可以看看这篇文章提到的两个案例。

找提供担保的律师,还有另外一层问题,那就是这个律师在提供保证的时候,违反了律师条例。加州律师条例不允许律师对案子的结果提供保证。律师条例的Rule 1-400假定下列“交流”违反规则:A “communication” which contains guarantees, warranties, or predictions regarding the result of the representation.

所以,对提供保证的律师来说,还有另外一层问题:也就是说,正派的律师为什么要违反律师条例操作?

为了解决这个问题,在我们社区里,有的律师就先口头提供保证,然后他们会给客人发一个email,说他没有作过任何保证。

我们说这些事情,听起来好像有些复杂。但是,在一个社会里,所有的骗局都会有点复杂性的。但是,这个复杂性不会太难懂,因为做保证的律师不是那些真正聪明的律师。真正有能力的律师,凭本事吃饭,不必违法保证案件结果。

既然我们提到H-1B,我就应该再说一句。在中文网站上,很多应届毕业生互相帮助,自己琢磨,靠DIY申请H-1B。这些人有了问题,就在这些中文网站上请求回答。当然,回答的人,什么层次的都有。有些回答是很好的,但也有一些是错误的。问题是这些DIY的人,没有能力分清这些回答哪些是正确的,哪些是荒唐的。在这种情况下DIY,拿自己的身份开玩笑,自然是不明智的。

据说有些DIY的人说,他们DIY,不是为了省钱,而是嫌律师做出来的案子质量不好。这些人,还是上面讲的那些人。他们觉得律师没一个是诚实的。受理H-1B的律师,没有一个是认真负责,一丝不苟的人。我们在上面讲过,这种想法,是完全错误的。

(本文根据2013.3.6. AM1300节目改写,节目录音在:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Wf2fERN3I)

当心向你担保的律师


我们讲过很多次的律师向客人担保案件成功的问题,但是问题还是层出不穷。

首先,律师不可能对客人提供担保。因为在不了解全部情况的时候,在决定权不在律师自己手中的时候,律师如何可以保证?

第二,律师所谓的保证,指的只是失败后退律师费。如果一个一百万的诉讼,或者一个一百万的投资移民。律师费是很有限的。如果你把一百万给输掉或者亏掉了以后,即便能把律师费给拿回来,你的损失还是损失。对于投资移民来说,最终的结果是移民失败。退了律师费又于事何补?

第三,我们以前已经多次提到过,所谓的退款,都是很有问题的。我们曾经讲过一个在我们社区,叫李晓升的律师,被律师协会起诉,因为他向一位王先生保证,但是,官司输掉以后,拒绝退款给王先生。

这种例子,遍地都是。上个星期出的这个投资移民案子,就有是这样一个事例。上星期五,美国证监会(SEC)起诉的这个叫Anshoo R. Sethi的人,在芝加哥搞了一个投资项目,从250个投资者(主要是中国人)中,筹集到了1亿4500万美元的投资,再加上1100万美元的手续费。

当证监会动手的时候,1100万美元的手续费,已经花掉了90%,也就是1000万。其中250万美元去了Sethi的个人帐号。另外700多万美元,去了什么地方?

当律师提供这种保证的时候,法律的解释就是所有款项,都应该存在律师的信托帐户里。因为只有这样,才构成“担保”。否则,律师先把钱花了,然后在到别的地方凑钱来换客人,就有一个凑不凑得出来的问题。(当然,很多律师从头开始就没打算还什么钱。)

其实,投资移民面对的是仍在中国的中国人,保证泛滥的是在华人社区,也就是已经来到美国的中国人。为什么大家都想让律师提供保证呢?这我真的非常不明白。但是我明白的是,当一个客人问律师能否保证的时候,你就把律师放在一个位置上。所有的律师都知道,说老实话等于把这个客人赶走。但是,想要挣这笔钱,就一定要说谎。我的问题是,对于要求律师保证的客人来说,他是找到一个老老实实做事的律师的几率大,还是找到一个像Sethi,像我们以前讲过的李晓升的几率大?

第四,要求律师退律师费,是一个对律师不公平的做法。试想,对于一个不完全了解情况的律师的来说,一个客人要求律师保证案件成功。这个律师在明知道不能保证的情况下,因为需要这笔生意,需要这笔钱,才硬着头皮说保证。这是一个什么样的律师?你的案子在这种律师手里出了问题,你还指望从这样的律师嘴里,把那块肉给拿出来,是一个什么样的成功几率?

有很多人说:律师都是骗子。我听到这话的时候,就很想问问:你有没有问过自己?这是谁的问题?

新案例显示投资移民中的问题


美国的投资移民一直是一个问题。我们律师事务所在这方面,可以说是一直在做不懈的努力。我的文章和谈话,被当地的报纸普遍转载、发表,有一次谈话还被中新社转发。

但是,这方面的努力,对于那些一心想来的中国人来说,似乎没有任何影响力。投资移民,主要还是经过那些花大钱到中国去招徕投资者的美国项目或者各种形式的中介,包括拿着美国律师名义在中国作业的中介。很少有投资者真的到美国来寻求投资项目。其实,这里的问题显而易见:一个投资公司,花那么多钱到中国去招徕投资者。他们的市场销售费用,从哪里出?但是,无论我们如何呼吁,还是只有很少的中国人来美国寻求投资机会。

上星期五,美国证监会(SEC)对一个叫Anshoo R. Sethi的人提起诉讼。起诉书指出,Sethi在芝加哥搞了一个投资项目,从250个投资者(主要是中国人)中,筹集到了1亿4500万美元的投资,再加上1100万美元的手续费。

Sethi伪造证明,他们有建筑许可,而且还几个大旅馆也已经签署合同,愿意加入。他们还伪造文件,递交给移民局,这样移民局可以批准他们临时绿卡的申请。他们一方面保证不成功退款,另一方面,他们已经把他们收到的手续费中的90%花掉。超过250万美元的款项,被转到Sethi的个人帐号。

SEC在上周早些时候,秘密递交起诉书,这样法官可以批准他们去查封Sethi的所有帐号,以保护投资者的资产,因此1亿多美元的投资款,大部分得到保护。

29岁的Sethi对投资者声称,自己有超过15年的房地产投资经验。他还说,他在2010年注册的公司Upgrowth LLC,有超过35年的经验。

在美国投资,其操作,应该在美国进行。这样,投资活动受到美国法律的全面管辖。另外,在美国境内操作,法律对投资机构本身,也有很严格的要求。这些保护对大多数中国的客人来说,可以说是必不可少的。

但是,现在的现实还是,大多数的投资者,是在中国通过中介,或者美国投资项目的直接销售行为,进行投资的。

这250个人的绿卡,自然是没有希望了。但是,我们应该提出的问题是,这个问题的范围到底有多大?时间是会回答这个问题的。

新年特别节目


新年有很多新事情

有兴趣的朋友可以收听我的新年特别节目(国内的内容被自动删除了):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZD7JkQVQZs

(国内的朋友需要翻墙,翻墙以后如果不能打开文件的话需要到:

http://www.real.com/

免费安装real player)

买者小心(Caveat emptor),请特别小心“便宜”律师


我们经常听到“律师是骗子”这类的评论。

第一:我不同意这样的评论,因为如果这个结论是真实的,美国就不会有公正。这和美国基本上是一个公正社会的事实是相违背的。

问题是,很多华裔找律师的时候,方法有问题。问题其一就是找便宜的律师。

下面的故事,就是这样一个例子。律师的中文名字是李晓升,英文名字James H. Li。(英文是律协起诉李晓升的原文。)

律协用了两个事件起诉李晓升。在第一个事件里,李晓升以4万元受理了一个案子,他保证成功代理王先生,如果不成功,他会把3万元还给王先生。王先生同意让李晓升代理他的案子。当李晓升把案子输了以后,拒绝把3万元还给王先生。在第二个事件里,李晓升开始以每小时$100代理崔先生,很快地把费用涨到每小时$650,榨干了崔先生。

第二:在美国是有正义的。

李晓升在很多年里,对华人胡作非为。他所有的招数,一开始都是以低价招揽客户。

凡事不是不报,只是时候未到。到了最后,加州律协正式起诉李晓升,为那些受害的客户伸张正义。

经验教训:找律师的时候,应该小心,否则,就会找到有问题的律师。如果一个人专门想找便宜的律师,那就会找到李晓升这样的律师。

几千年前,古罗马就有一句话,叫做“买者小心”(即Caveat emptor)。如果一个人找律师,一味找最便宜的,很难不找上那些“对症下药”的,诸如李晓升之流的律师。

下面是英文是律协起诉李晓升的原文:


1. James H. Li ("Respondent") was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California on June 12, 1995, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

2. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows:

3. On or about August 2, 2007, Ching Wang ("Wang") employed Respondent to represent him in the case entitled Silvia Hu v. Ching Wang, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. RCV090876 ("the Wang II case"). On or about August 2, 2007, Respondent an( Wang entered into a retainer agreement for a $2,000 "non-refundable retainer," and agreed that he would be billed at an hourly rate of $100 per hour. Wang paid the Respondent $2,000.

4. On or about August 5, 2007, Respondent proposed entering into an amended retainer agreement, which amended the initial retainer agreement. The amended retainer agreement required Wang to pay an additional $10,000 as a "non-refundable retainer," and an additional $30,000 in advanced fees. In the amended retainer agreement, Respondent provided Wang with a "guarantee" that he would receive a "favorable result" for Wang and the named defendants, which he defined as: "(1) a judgment or verdict in favor of all defendants, (2) a dismissal with or without prejudice of the case in favor of all defendants, or (3) a resolution of the case in the way that Clients choose to accept." Respondent guaranteed to refund the $30,000 in advanced fees if he did not receive a favorable result for Wang and the other named defendants. Wang and Respondent entered into the amended retainer agreement and Wang paid Respondent the additional $40,000.

5. On or about February 4, 2008, a judgment was entered in favor of Sylvia Hu and against Wang in the Wang II case.

6. In or about February 2008, Wang demanded refund of the $30,000.

7. On or about February 6, 2008, Respondent sent an email to Wang stating that his "guarantee" set forth in the amended retainer agreement was "void" because Wang did not cooperate with him. Li did not refund the $30,000 to Wang and Li’s claim that the retainer agreement was "void" was untenable.

8. On or about February 13, 2008, Wang terminated Respondent. Respondent continuec to refuse to refund the $30,000 to Wang and has not refunded the $30,000 to date.

9. On or about January 7, 2009, Wang filed a lawsuit against Respondent entitled Ching Wang, et al. v. James Hsiaosheng LL et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC054638  ("the fraud case") for breach of contract, fraud and legal malpractice, among other theories. Wang sought, among other things, damages and the imposition of a constructive trust for the return of the $30,000. Respondent continued to refuse to refund the $30,000 and has continued to refuse to refund the $30,000 to date.

10. The court scheduled the fraud case for a jury trial which was set to begin on May 4, 2011 and Respondent had notice of the trial date. On or about May 4, 2011, Respondent appeared at the trial representing himself and attorney Sally Chan ("Chan") appeared on behalf of Wang. The court advised the parties the trial would begin the next day on May 5, 2011, with a trial estimate of two-to-three weeks, and that a jury panel of approximately 50 prospective urors would be present so that the parties could begin picking a jury.

11. On or about May 5,2011, knowing the trial was to begin that same morning, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case on his own behalf in the case entitled In Re James Li, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Central District) Case No. 8:11-bk-16426. Respondent filed the bankruptcy proceeding with the improper purpose of staying the fraud trial. The court did in fact continue the trial in the fraud action, but issued an order to show cause for June 26, 2011, as to why the trial should not go forward, after Chan advised the court that Respondent had filed the bankruptcy petition without any of the required schedules.

12. On or about May 16, 2011, and after having delayed the fraud trial, Li dismissed his bankruptcy case.

-3-

13. By filing a bankruptcy case on May 5,2011 for the purpose of delaying the fraud trial, and by maintaining the untenable legal position that the guarantee in the amended retainer agreement he drafted is now void as against Wang, and by refusing to refund the $30,000 to Wang despite his written promise to do so, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

14. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(g), by encouraging either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest, as follows:

15. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

16. By filing a bankruptcy case on May 5, 2011 for the purpose of delaying the fraud trial, Respondent encouraged either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest.

17. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(c), by failing to counsel or maintain such action, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him legal or just, as follows:

18. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

19. By filing a bankruptcy case on May 5, 2011 for the purpose of delaying the fraud trial, Respondent failed to counsel or maintain such action, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him legal or just.

20. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, as follows:

21. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

22. Respondent violated 11 U.S.C, section 707(b) by filing his Chapter 7 bankruptcy for an improper purpose.

23. By violating 11 U.S.C, section 707(b) when he filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitiol for the improper purpose of delaying the fraud case, Respondent failed to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

24. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d), by employing, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are inconsistent with truth, as follows:

25. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

26. On or about May 5, 2011, when he filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Respondent executed the required form, "Exhibit D- Individual Debtor’s Statement of Compliance with Credit Counseling Requirement" to his Bankruptcy Petition under penalty of perjury falsely representing that he had complied with the requirement within 180 days of filing bankruptcy. Specifically, Respondent checked box 2 on the form, which stated in pertinent part, "Within the 180 days before the filing of my bankruptcy case, I received a briefing from a credit counseling agency approved by the United States trustee or bankruptcy administrator that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted me in performing a related budget analysis, but I do not have a certificate from the agency describing the services provided to me." Respondent executed the form under penalty of perjury. Respondent knew at the time he executed the form that he had not completed the credit counseling requirement prior to filing his bankruptcy petition.

27. On or about May 5,2011, Respondentfalsely stated in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy penalty of perjury that he estimated his assets to be "between $0 to $50,000," when he knew his estimated assets exceeded $370,000.

28. By falsely representing on "Exhibit D- Individual Debtor’s Statement of Compliance with Credit Counseling Requirement" to his bankruptcy petition that he had completed the requisite credit counseling requirement prior to filing for bankruptcy when he knew he had not done so, and by falsely estimating his assets exceeded $370,000, Respondent employed, for the purposes of maintaining the causes confided in him, means which are inconsistent with truth.

29. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(2), by failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned, as follows:

30. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

31. On or about October 17, 2011, the jury entered a verdict in the fraud case in favor of Wang and against Li for fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury awarded damages against Respondent and in favor of Wang for the entire $30,000

32. On or about January 5, 2012, the court entered an amended judgment against Respondent in the fraud case for $44,000 in general damages and $44,000 in punitive damages. To date, Respondent has not paid the judgment.

33. By the express terms of his own "guarantee" contained in the amended retainer agreement, Respondent has not earned at least $30,000 of the fees paid to him by Wang, and Respondent has owed Wang a refund since on or about February 4, 2008, irrespective of the fraud judgment and Wang should not have had to file suit or obtain a judgment against Respondent to recover these unearned fees.

34. By failing to refund the $30,000 in unearned fees at any time between February 4, 2008 and the present, Respondent failed to promptly refund unearned fees.

35. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A), by failing to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import, as follows:

36. The allegations of Count(s) One are incorporated by reference.

37. Respondent did not immediately deposit the $30,000 in funds into a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import after having been made aware in or about February 2008 when he learned that Wang was disputing Respondent’s retention of the $30,000 as attorney’s fe~s. Only on or about October 25,2011, and only after Respondent had been found liable to Wang for breach of contract and fraud, did Respondent deposit the $30,000 into his Bank of America client trust account no. xxxxx-x18911

38. By failing to deposit the $30,000 into his CTA at any time between February 2008 and October 25, 2011, Respondent failed to deposit funds received for the benefit of a client in a bank account labeled "Trust Account," "Client’s Funds Account" or words of similar import.

39. By failing to deposit the $30,000 in fees into a client trust account at any time from February 4, 2008 when he learned Wang was disputing his right to retain the funds as fees until October 25, 2011, Respondent failed to deposit disputed funds into a client trust account.

40. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: Only the last four digits of the account are listed to protect the account.

41. On or about April 25, 2007, Michael Chui ("Chui") was sued by his sister Cindy Tsui ("Tsui") in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GC038906 ("the lawsuit") involving a dispute over the ownership of real property located at 9333 Guess Street, in the City of Rosemead, the County of Los Angeles and the State of California ("the real property").

42. On or about August 27, 2007, Chui hired Respondent to defend him in the lawsuit. Pursuant to the fee agreement, Respondent agreed to charge Chui an hourly fee of $100 per hour. Chui selected Respondent to represent him because of Respondent’s low fees and because Respondent is fluent in Chinese (Cantonese), which is Chui’s primary language. Respondent provided Chui with a written retainer agreement, which Chui signed, which was in English and not in Chinese. The fee agreement did not expressly reserve the right for Respondent to increase his $100 hourly rate.

43. In or about January 2008, Respondent increased his hourly fee from $100 per hour to $110 per hour for the first 30 hours of work during 2008, and then he increased his hourly fee to $250 per hour.

44. Between on or about August 24, 2007 and on or about September 23, 2008, Chui paid Respondent with cash, checks and credit cards totaling $57,000, until he had no more money. At that time, Respondent knew Chui was vulnerable and that he could not afford to retain new counsel to represent him in the lawsuit.

45. In or about September 2008, Respondent, knowing Chui had an equity ownership interest in the real property, approached Chui about signing deeds of trust and promissory notes against his interest in the real property as security for past due and future attorney’s fees owed to Respondent.

46. Between on or about December 2, 2008 and on or about December 23, 2009, Respondent provided Chui with five deeds of trust and five promissory notes permitting Respondent to acquire a security interest again Chui’s portion of the real property in the amount of $170,000.

47. On or about December 2, 2008, Chui signed a Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents as Additional Security in favor of Respondent for a $30,000 interest in Chui’s property. The deed of trust, which was signed by Chui, was written in English and Respondent did not a copy of the deed of trust in Chinese.

48. On or about December 4, 2008, Chui signed a promissory note for the $30,000 deed of trust executed on or about December 2, 2008. The promissory note provided that Chui pay interest at 13% per annum on the principal balance, which amounted to a usurious rate ofinteres! to California Constitution, Article XV § 1, which limits the rate of interest to 10%. The r note, which Chui executed, was in English and Respondent did not provide Chui with a written translation of the promissory note in Chinese. The promissory note did contain the following statement in English, which Chui initialed: "The undersigned also acknowledge (sic) that it (sic) has been advised to seek independent counsel to review this document as well as the associated DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY, and has been given a reasonable opportunity, 20 days, to seek such counsel." Chui did not sign any document in Chinese consenting in writing to the transaction and he did not sign any document in Chinese acknowledging that he had been advised to seek independent counsel to review the promissory note and deed of trust.

49. On or about June 23, 2009, Chui signed a Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents as Additional Security in favor of Respondent for a $30,000 interest in Chui’s property. The deed of trust, which was signed by Chui, was written in English and Respondent did not provide a copy of the deed of trust in Chinese. The deed of trust referenced a corresponding promissory note dated June 2, 2009, but no such promissory note exists.

50. In or about July 2009, unbeknownst to Chui, Respondent assigned his rights to receive $50,000 from the deeds of trust against Chui’s property to his sister Po Shan Li

51. On or about August 3, 2009, Chui signed a promissory note for $301000, but the corresponding deed of trust is not identified in the promissory note. The promissory note provided that Chui pay interest at 13% per annum on the principal balance, which amounted to a usurious rate of interest pursuant to California Constitution, Article XV § 1, which limits the rate of interest to 10%. The promissory note, which Chui executed, was in English and Respondent did not provide Chui with a written translation of the documents in Chinese. The promissory note did contain the following statement in English, which Chui initialed: "The undersigned also acknowledge(sic) that it (sic) has been advised to seek independent counsel to review this document as well as the associated DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY, and has been given a reasonable opportunity, 20 days, to seek such counsel." Chui did not sign any document in Chinese consenting in writing to the transaction and he did not sign any document in Chinese acknowledging that he had been advised to seek independent counsel to review the promissory note and deed of trust.

52. On or about September 8, 2009, Chui signed a Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents as Additional Security in favor of Respondent for a $60,000 interest in Chui’s property. The deed of trust, which was signed by Chui, was written in English and Respondent did not provide a copy of the deed of trust in Chinese.

53. On or about September 8, 2009, Chui signed a promissory note for the $60,000 deed of trust executed on or about September 8, 2009. The promissory note provided that Chui pay interest at 17% per annum on the principal balance, which amounted to a usurious rate of interesl pursuant to California Constitution, Article XV § 1, which limits the rate of interest to 10%. The promissory note, which Chui executed was in English and Respondent did not provide Chui with a written translation of the documents in Chinese. The promissory note did contain the followin~ statement in English, which Chui initialed: "The undersigned also acknowledge (sic) that it (sic) has been advised to seek independent counsel to review this document as well as the associated DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY, and has been given a reasonable opportunity, 20 days, to seek such counsel." Chui did not sign any document in Chinese consenting in writing to the transaction and he did not sign any document in Chinese acknowledging that he had been advised to seek independent counsel to review the promissory note and deed of trust.

54. On or about December 23, 2009, Chui signed a Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents as Additional Security in favor of Respondent for a $25,000 interest in Chui’s property. The deed of trust, which was signed by Chui, was written in English and Respondent did not provide a copy of the deed of trust in Chinese.

55. On or about December 23, 2009, Chui signed a promissory note for the $25,000 deed of trust executed on or about December 23, 2009. The promissory note provided that Chui pay interest at 17% per annum on the principal balance, which amounted to a usurious rate of interest pursuant to California Constitution, Article XV § 1, which limits the rate of interest to 10%. The promissory note, which Chui executed was in English and Respondent did not provide Chui with a written translation of the documents in Chinese. The promissory note did contain the following statement in English, which Chui initialed: "The undersigned also acknowledge (sic) that it (sic) has been advised to seek independent counsel to review this document as well as the associated DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY, and has been given a reasonable opportunity, 20 days, to seek such counsel." Chui did not sign any document in Chinese consenting in writing to the transaction and he did not sign any document in Chinese acknowledging that he had been advised to seek independent counsel to review the promissory note and deed of trust.

56. On or about December 23, 2009, Chui signed a second Deed of Trust with Assignment of Rents as Additional Security in favor of Respondent for a $25,000 interest in Chui’s property. The deed of trust, which was signed by Chui, was written in English and Respondent did not provide a copy of the deed of trust in Chinese.

57. On or about December 23, 2009, Chui signed a second promissory note for the $25,000 second deed of trust executed on or about December 23, 2009. The promissory note provided that Chui pay interest at 17% per annum on the principal balance, which amounted to a usurious rate of interest pursuant to California Constitution, Article XV § 1, which limits the rate of interest to 10%. The promissory note, which Chui executed was in English and Respondent did not provide Chui with a written translation of the documents in Chinese. The promissory note did contain the following statement in English, which Chui initialed: "The undersigned alsc acknowledge (sic) that it (sic) has been advised to seek independent counsel to review this document as well as the associated DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY, and has been given a reasonable opportunity, 20 days, to seek such counsel." Chui did not sign any document in Chinese consenting in writing to the transaction and he did not sign any document in Chinese acknowledging that he had been advised to seek independent counsel to review the promissory note and deed of trust.

58. On or about March 14, 2010, Respondent commissioned an appraisal on the real property, which was appraised as having a value of $375,000. At all relevant times while he was billing Chui for legal services during the pendency of the lawsuit, Respondent knew or should have known that the value of the real property was approximately $375,000, and that if the property was partitioned, Chui’s equity in the real property would be no more than half, less any bills and expenses to be paid.

59. In or about April 2010, unbeknownst to Chui, Respondent assigned his rights to receive $90,000 from the deeds of trust against Chui’s property to his sister Po Shan Li.

60. In or about June 2010, Respondent submitted a bill to Chui showing a balance due of $156,974 and Respondent had increased his hourly billing rate to $350 per hour.

61. In or about July 2010, Respondent notified Chui orally and in writing that he was going to be charging him $650 per hour because the amount secured by the five deeds of trust had been exhausted.

62. The trial in the lawsuit took place on or about August 3, 4, 5, and 16, 2010.

63. On or about September 17, 2010, the court issued its Final Statement of Decision ordering partition of the property by sale, and made certain findings as to the distribution of the proceeds, including a finding that, "All sums due to counsel for Chui to satisfy the deed of trust in favor of James Li, chargeable to the share of defendant Chui."

64. On or about September 17, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw from representing Chui in the lawsuit, which was scheduled for a hearing on October 12, 2012.

65. On or about September 20, 2010, Chui learned that Respondent had assigned $140,000 of his rights in the deeds of trust to his sister, Po Shan Li, and that Respondent would be representing both himself and Po Shan Li in an effort to collect money from Chui’s equity interest in the real property. Chui also learned that Respondent had filed a motion to withdraw from representing him in the lawsuit.

66. On or about September 29, 2010, and while Respondent was still the attorney of record for Chui, Respondent filed the motion to vacate judgment as the attorney on behalf of himself and his sister Po Shan Li. He listed himself and Po Shan Li as "Intervenors." On or about September 29, 2010, and while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, Respondent also filed a Notice of Pendency of Action for Vacating Judgment (Lis Pendens) on the real property on behalf of himself and Po Shan Li as "Aggrieved Persons."

67. On or about October 6, 2010, the court issued judgment in favor of Tsui and against Chui and incorporated the Final Statement of Decision as follows: the court ordered partition of the property by sale, and made certain findings as to the distribution of the proceeds, including a finding that, "All sums due to counsel for Chui to satisfy the deed of trust in favor of James Li, chargeable to the share of defendant Chui."

68. On or about October 18, 2010, after Chui secured new counsel, George Young ("Young") and Steven Sugars ("Sugars"), Young and Sugars sent a substitution of attorney to Respondent and directed him to sign the substitution of attorney form and stop all work on behal of Chui.

69. In or about October 2010, Respondent submitted a bill to Chui showing a balance due of $246,055.10 and Respondent had increased his hourly billing rate to $650 per hour.

70. To date, Respondent has continued to attempt to collect his fees from Chui’s equity interest in the real property and he has continued to assert that he and Po Shan Li have deeds of trust for $170,000 as against the real property.

71. By repeatedly increasing his hourly fees from $100 to $650 when he knew his client had exhausted all of his funds in paying him $57,000 and had no means to hire other counsel, by securing five deeds of trust totaling $170,000 against Chui’s equity interest in the real property, and by increasing his hourly fee from $350 to $650 one month before the trial date, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

72. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A), by entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unconscionable fee, as follows:

73. The allegations of Count(s) Eight are incorporated by reference.

74. The amount of the October 2010 bill showing a balance due of $246,055.10, in addition to the $57,000 previously paid to Respondent by Chui was disproportionate to the value of the services Respondent provided to Chui.

75. Respondent’s level of sophistication, experience, reputation and ability did not justify an hourly fee of $650.

76. Chui was a vulnerable client whose primary language is Chinese (Cantonese).

77. If Respondent were to collect the $170,000 based on the promissory notes and trust deeds he required Chui to sign, all of Chui’s equity interest in the real property would be exhausted on Respondent’s fees, which far exceed any equity interest Chui has in the property.

78. By charging Chui usurious rated of interest on each of the promissory notes ranging from 13% to 17%, by advising Chui in July 2010 that he would be billing him at an hourly rate of $650, and by sending his client a bill in or about October 2010 showing a balance due of $246,055.10 after having already billed Chui $57,000 in a case where Respondent knew or should have known the property was worth approximately $375,000, Respondent entered into an agreement for, charged, and collected an unconscionable fee.

79. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-200(A), by entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal fee, as follows:

80. The allegations of Count(s) Eight are incorporated by reference.

81. By entering into the five promissory notes whereby Respondent contracted to charge Chui between 13% and 17% interest in violation of California’s usury law, Respondent entered into an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal fee.

82. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-300, by knowingly acquiring a security adverse to a client without complying with the requirements that the transaction or acquisition and its terms were fair and reasonable to the client, that the transaction or acquisition and its terms were fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client, that the client was advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice, that the client was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice, and that th~ client thereafter consented in writing to the terms of the transaction or acquisition, as follows:

83. The allegations of Count(s) Eight are incorporated by reference.

84. When Respondent had Chui execute each of the five promissory notes secured by the five deeds of trust, the transactions were not fair and reasonable as Respondent was seeking a security interest in the real property which was the subject of the litigation in which he was defending Chui and Respondent sought to charge Chui usurious rates of interest ranging from 13% to 17% for each of the promissory notes. The transactions were also not fair and reasonable because Respondent sought to use the five promissory notes secured by the five deeds of trust to charge Chui an additional $170,000 in attorney’s fees, in addition to the $57,000 in attorney’s fees he had previously charged Chui, in a case where the subject real property to be partitioned was only worth approximately $375,000, less any other debts, liabilities or encumbrances. The five promissory notes secured by the five deeds of trust enable Respondent and Po Shan Li to take all of Chui’s remaining equity in the real property and to foreclose on the real property.

85. When Respondent had Chui execute each of the five promissory notes secured by the five deeds of trust, the transactions and its terms were not fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client because Respondent did not provide written translations of the five deeds of trust and five promissory notes to Chui in Chinese.

86. Respondent did not advise Chui in writing in his primary language of Chinese of his right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer of his choice before he executed each of the deeds of trust and promissory notes.

87. Chui did not consent in writing in Chinese to the terms each of the five transactions a~ the time he executed each of the five deeds of trust and five promissory notes. Chui did not sign any acknowledgment in writing in Chinese of his right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer before executing each of the deeds of trust and promissory notes.

88. By entering into each of the five promissory notes secured by the five deeds of trust with Chui without advising Chui in writing in his primary language of Chinese that he may seek the advice of an independent lawyer before signing the deeds of trust and promissory notes, by not obtaining Chui’s written acknowledgement in Chinese of his right to seek the advice of an independent lawyer before executing the deeds of trust and promissory notes, and by failing to explain to Chui that his execution of the five promissory notes and five deeds of trust would permit Respondent foreclose on the real property or take all of Chui’s equity in the real property which was the subject of the litigation in which he was defending Chui, Respondent knowingly acquired an interest adverse to a client without complying with the requirements that the transaction or acquisition and its terms were fair and reasonable to the client, that the transaction or acquisition and its terms were fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which should reasonably have been understood by the client, that the client was advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer of the client’s choice, that the client was given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice, and that the client thereafter consented in writing to the terms of the transaction or acquisition.

89. Respondent willfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(C)(2), by accepting or continuing representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflicted without the informed written consent of each client, as follows:

90. The allegations of Count(s) Eight are incorporated by reference.

91. Chui, Respondent and Po Shan Li had competing and conflicting interests in Chui’s equity interest in the real property.

92. By filing a motion to vacate the judgment on behalf of himself and his sister Po Shan Li while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, by filing a lis pendens on behalf of himself and Po Shan Li against the real property while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, by continuing efforts to collect the $170,000 against Chui on behalf of himself and Po Shan Li while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, and by continuing to represent Po Shan Li in efforts to collect money from Chui, Respondent accepted or continued representation of more than one client in a matter in which the interests of the clients actually conflicted without the informed written consent of each client.

93. Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(a), by failing to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, as follows:

94. The allegations of Count(s) Eight are incorporated by reference.

95. Respondent owed a common law duty of loyalty to Chui while he was his attorney of record in the lawsuit.

96. By breaching his common law duty of loyalty to Chui by filing a motion to vacate the judgment on behalf of himself and his sister Po Shan Li while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, filing a lis pendens on behalf of himself and Po Shan Li against the real property while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, and continuing efforts to collect the $170,000 against Chui on behalf of himself and Po Shan Li while he was still the attorney of record for Chui, and by continuing to represent Po Shan Li in efforts to collect money from Chui Respondent failed to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

起诉书原文:http://www.pujielaw.com/Doc/StateBar_v_JamesLi.pdf

我在洛杉矶AM1300的节目回顾


因为美国的电台talk show,比电视的talk show自由许多,加之这样可以把我补习中文的努力,从书面扩展到口头,所以我就欣然接受了。人生本身就是一个学习过程嘛。

近几个月,节目的形式,已经渐渐形成,诚实可庆。以下是我这几个月谈过的题目:

08/01/2012 - 美中關係回顧(一)(嘉宾:林培瑞)
08/08/2012 - 美中關係回顧(二)(嘉宾:林培瑞)
08/15/2012 - 美中關係回顧(三)(嘉宾:林培瑞)
08/22/2012 - 休假
08/29/2012 - 休假
09/05/2012 - 日本印象
09/12/2012 - 總統競選(奧巴馬接受提名演说及"You did not build it"言論)
09/19/2012 - 反日情绪
09/26/2012 - 中國的自由派思想(一)(嘉宾:劉蘇里)
10/03/2012 - 总统第一次辩论(Domestic policy)
10/10/2012 - 纪念双十
10/17/2012 - 莫言(嘉宾:曹長青)
10/24/2012 - 總統第三次辯論(Foreign policy)
10/31/2012 - 胡溫回顧(嘉宾:余杰)
11/07/2012 - 美國的未來四年
11/14/2012 - 十八大

节目录音可以通过下列链接收听:

http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng