Be N wera 10 i 12 1B 4 15 16 V7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 25 26 3 27 28 ‘exmguas Easc07 erie? e e vx PARKER MILLS & PATEL LLP DAVID B. PARKER (SBN: 072192) 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 SEP 252006 Los Angeles, CA 90017 icc Telephone: (213) 622-4441 Facehmiler (213) 622-1444 RIGINAL y ‘Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANTRAN BUSINESS CORP., eee ec HELENE AN and ELIZABETH AN Case assigned Ww MDAC IN. Tre SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ESSTPERINR CODRT unica ietk Deputy COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANTRAN BUSINESS CORP.; HELENE AN; and) Case No: ELIZABETH AN, ) 80359071 ) COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL Plaintiffs ) MALPRACTICE AND DECLARATORY ) RELIEF vs. ) ) KEITH FINK; KEITH FINK & ASSOCIATES, ) and DOES | through 10 ) ) Defendants. ) ¥ ELIZABETH AN HECK 320, Plaintiffs ANTRAN BUSINESS CORP., HELENE ARRS‘dlid' Allege as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiffs HELENE AN (“Helene”) and ELIZABETH AN (“Elizabeth”) are individuals residing in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff Antran Business Corp. (“Antran”) is a California corporation waose principal place of business is in San Francisco County. 2. Defendants KEITH FINK (“Fink”) and Keith Fink & Associates (“Fink firm”) (collectively “defendants”) are a California attomey and California law firm, respectively, whose residence and law office, respectively, are in Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the law firm is a sole proprietorship with Fink as owner. {0082248.D0c} 1 ‘COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF28 rarest 3. Plaintiff, along with two other individuals, HANNAH AN (“Hannah”) and DANNY VU (“Vu”) (collectively “the joint clients”) were defendants in one or more litigation ‘matters, including Kiritchenko v. Vu, filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, Case No, CGC-04- 434735 (“underlying action”) and engaged defendants to represent them in said lawsuit. 4, Plaintiffs have already paid Defendants substantial fees in connection with the ‘underlying action, far more than their fair share, even if such fees were properly charged. Plaintiffs contend such fees were not properly charged and seek disgorgement thereof. Defendants, for their part, have demanded payment of additional legal fees from Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have refused said payment on account of Defendants’ wrongful acts including but not limited to failing to obtain a written fee agreement pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 6148, failing to obtain a conflicts waiver, specifically written informed consent pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”), Rule 3-310(C) and Rule 3-310(F), disclosing confidential information obtained from Plaintiffs during the course of the attorney-client relationship, and acting contrary to the interests of Plaintiffs by siding with two of the joint clients, Hannah and Vu, in connection with the same litigation in which Defendants once represented all of the joint clients, both during and after the termination of the attorney-client relationship. Defendants have also failed to comply with their obligations to turn over the originals of all client papers and property as required by RPC Rule 3-700(D). 5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as to the respective rights and obligations of the parties with respect to Defendants’ demand for payment of attomeys fees. 6. Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of $50,000 as a proximate result of the ‘wrongful acts of defendants. vt de we Wt a (00032248 DOC} 2 ‘COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND DECLARATORY RELIEFee a awe vw 10 u 12 13 14 15 16: 17) 18 19 20 21 2 2B 4 2s 5 26 27 28 clstaltiguces Sor ‘res WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS plead for relief as follows: 1 trial; For compensatory damages for legal malpractice with an amount to be proven at 2. Fora declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs are not liable to Defendants for any attorneys fees or costs; 3. For prevailing party costs. 4, Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: September 25, 2006 PARKER MILLS & PATEL LLP {00052248.D0c} DAVID B. PARKER DWPB RAL - DAVID B, PARKER 3) _ Attomeys for Plaintiffs ANTRAN BUSINESS CORP., HELENE AN and ELIZABETH AN 3 ‘COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF