California lawyer convicted

[Demosthenes]

Brea attorney found guilty of tax evasion

Harpreet S. Brar is found guilty on five counts of felony state income tax evasion.

By DENISSE SALAZAR
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

BREA – An attorney who operated a law office in Brea was found guilty on five counts of felony state income tax evasion Thursday and will be sentenced in September, the Franchise Tax Board announced today.

Harpreet S. Brar, 35, who also operated a limited liability partnership in Long Beach, failed to file 1999 personal income tax and corporate income tax returns. He also failed to file his 2002 personal income tax returns and for the limited liability partnership, Holly McDonell, an FTB spokeswoman said.

"Tax evasion is a felony and you will go to prison," McDonell said.

Brar, who represented himself, did file a 1999 personal income tax return after the FTB executed a search warrant in late 2004. However, Brar failed to claim about $1.5 million he received from the sale of securities.

Brar was arrested in February 2006 for tax evasion. He was out on $250,000 bail when the trial started a week ago at Orange County Superior Court, McDonell said.

Brar owes the FTB more than $138,000 in additional tax for 1999, McDonell said. The total amount of restitution, including the business tax, penalties, interest, and the cost of the investigation, will be determined at Brar's sentencing on Sept. 14.

"All income is taxable, even illegal income, and the honest taxpayers pay 20 percent more because of those who cheat," McDonnell said.

According to the State Bar of California, Brar is no longer eligible to practice law. The number at Brar's former law office on Imperial Highway is disconnected and he could not be reached for comment.

[Demosthenes]

Brea Attorney Accused of Filing Hundreds of Frivolous Lawsuits Against L.A. County Retail Stores Continues His Legal Rampage in Orange County

Published: Thu, 01 Sep 2005, 20:30:00 GMT Edited by Christopher Simmons

O.C. Store Owners Fight Back With 31 Counter Suits

ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. - September 1 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- The Law Offices of Dilip Vithlani, a Norwalk, Calif.-based sole practitioner, today announced that he has agreed to defend at least thirty-one store owners throughout Orange County on a pro bono basis in a suit filed by Brea-based attorney Harpreet S. Brar (Case # 05CC08759, Superior Court of Orange County). Mr. Brar has sued hundreds of small businesses in Los Angeles County for allegedly collecting ATM transaction fees or "point-of-sale" device fees from his wife, plaintiff Satinder Brar, without proper disclosure signs. Mr. Brar has now filed an identical lawsuit in Orange County against more than 60 liquor store owners.

Harpreet Brar is one of several attorneys who had previously filed numerous suits of a similar nature, three of which were against nail salons. The other suits involved small markets and retail stores. In 2003, the State Attorney General sued Harpreet Brar (among other attorneys) in an effort to put a stop to such tactics, and in October of 2004 Honorable Peter Polos, Orange County Superior Court Judge, permanently enjoined Mr. Brar and other attorneys from filing such suits unless he could show that all defendants acted in concert Judge Polos also Ordered Mr. Brar to pay $1.78 million to the State Attorney General in civil penalties and required him to pay restitution for monies he had collected from numerous salon owners who had settled the suits with Mr. Brar.

Mr. Brar appealed the Order and oral arguments on his appeal were heard on August 19, 2005 in Santa Ana. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected shortly. Despite the permanent injunction and while his appeal has been pending, Mr. Brar has filed at least three identical suits to date, two in Los Angeles County and one in Orange County. All three suits accuse liquor store owners of failing to disclose ATM charges to consumers. Immediately after each of the store owners were served with the complaint, they each received a settlement demand varying from $500 to $1,000 in exchange for a dismissal.

In the Orange County suit, however, at least 31 store owners have decided to fight back by filing motions to dismiss as well as cross-complaints against Mr. Brar and the named plaintiff, Mrs. Brar, accusing them of abuse of process for the sole purpose of extorting monies from them.

"Mr. Brar has a well-documented history of filing such lawsuits in the State of California and is again abusing the judicial system under the guise of doing 'public good' while collecting settlements from these hard-working business owners. The suits target minority owners, typically of Hispanic and Asian descent. In many instances, store owners have opted to 'settle' with Mr. Brar," said Dilip Vithlani, a Norwalk-based litigator and the attorney representing the Orange County business owners and two store owners in the Norwalk branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court. "It's basically a shakedown of small business owners who in most cases are unwilling to engage in an expensive legal fight and thus typically capitulate to Mr. Brar by settling with him in exchange for a dismissal."

Vithlani adds, "After learning of this egregious abuse of the legal process and groundless attacks on the 'mom-and-pop store owners,' I offered my services to defend these businesses pro bono. These lawsuits are unconscionable any way you look at them. Since being admitted to the California State Bar in 2000, Mr. Brar has consistently manipulated the judicial system by filing such suits under the guise of 'public benefit.' He's part of the problem and my clients and I are going to make every effort to put an end to his tactics once and for all."

The 31 cross-complaints against Mr. Brar and Mrs. Brar by the Orange County store owners each seek at least $2,500.00 in general damages plus punitive damages. The cross-complaints were filed in Orange County Superior Court on August 24, 2005 along with motions to dismiss the case. The motions are scheduled for a hearing on September 19, 2005. Satinder Brar, the named plaintiff, has until September 23rd to respond to the cross-complaints against her. Efforts to serve the cross-complaints on Mr. Brar are ongoing, since he has failed to return numerous phone calls, the office address he has provided to the State Bar is merely a Travel Agency where he has a mail box, and his facsimile number is no longer valid.

In addition to the cross-complaints, the matter is also being reported to the State Bar and the Office of the State Attorney General.

Vithlani, a 1998 graduate of Western State University College of Law who is no stranger to pro bono work, says the cases are so disturbing that other Western State alumni have offered to assist him in fighting the suit on a pro bono basis.

[Demosthenes]

From the CA Bar website:

April 16, 2006

HARPREET SINGH BRAR [#206460], 34, of Brea was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 16, 2006.

Brar was sued in 2003 by the California attorney general in an effort to stop him from improperly prosecuting private attorney general lawsuits filed under §17200 of the Business & Professions Code. In response, Brar filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contending the lawsuit should be dismissed because it was a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

However, the attorney general’s office is officially exempted from anti-SLAPP motions.

When the motion was denied, Brar appealed. The appeal stayed his obligation to respond to the AG’s demand for discovery, which was overdue, and forced postponement of a case management conference. The appeal subsequently was dismissed, with the court stating, “This is about as patently frivolous an appeal taken for purposes of delay as is imaginable.”

The case was returned to the trial court, where Brar allowed his default to be entered. After a final judgment was issued, he appealed. The appeal was pending at the time of the bar’s disciplinary proceedings.

The bar court found that Brar’s anti-SLAPP motion and appeal were based on unjust legal arguments and that he pursued an action with corrupt motive, acting in bad faith.

In another matter, the court found that he commingled funds in his client trust account, using it to pay personal and business expenses.

[jkeeb]

Mr. Brar has sued hundreds of small businesses in Los Angeles County for allegedly collecting ATM transaction fees or "point-of-sale" device fees from his wife, plaintiff Satinder Brar, without proper disclosure signs. Mr. Brar has now filed an identical lawsuit in Orange County against more than 60 liquor store owners.

I wonder how much his wife drinks. Maybe she has a problem.

[iplawyer]

Mr. Brar appealed the Order and oral arguments on his appeal were heard on August 19, 2005 in Santa Ana. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected shortly.

What was the result of the appeal?

[Demosthenes]

He was disbarred in 2007.

[Weathervane]

He was disbarred in 2007.

Isn't that disbrarred?

[grixit]

Well he seems to have tar babied himself pretty seriously.

[The Observer]

And it looks like he won't be tossed into the briar patch...

[Colonel_Buck]

The worst part is, the schmuck graduated from the law school I will be attending.

What law school is that?

[Imalawman]

The worst part is, the schmuck graduated from the law school I will be attending.

What law school is that?

Western State University.