On the next episode of

A few weeks ago, I wrote of the fact that Lisa Helfend Meyer had been sued by a disgruntled individual who thought that he would be reimbursed for the money he had put up for a client of M.O.L.M. (a female that he had an interest in and wanted to help). Well, I was willing to bet that Judge Armen Tamzarian was going to lower the boom on poor old Lisa.  BC695400.  Remember, I always want to be fair, and I am announcing the result of this legal battle. Judge Armen Tamzarian found in Lisa’s favor and against Ya-Ya Holdings.  We will post the judge’s decision, and you will get a feeling Judge Tamzarian was not happy with much of what he read and the decisions he would eventually have to make.

 

I don’t know why the boss won’t let us be unsupervised.

Meyer, Olson, Lowy, and Meyers L.L.P. are still a large and bustling firm, all due to the efforts of the ultimate “rainmaker,” Lisa Helfend Meyer, Esq. Without Lisa Helfend Meyer, there is NO M.O.L.M.; that is a fact.  It is Lisa that attracts and finds the clients (with the assistance of 20’s) with the ability to pay the fees that are required to support all the attorneys and support staff that she employs, AKA overhead. If left to “the” others, there would be no law firm; everyone knows this. The fact is, IF Lisa could cut this firm in half, get rid of all the “excess weight and feeders,” Lisa would put several million dollars more a year into her Gucci bag. Just like Trope and Trope, and Kolodny Law Group, whose empires collapsed when Sorrel and Stephen took the inevitable dirt naps, Meyer, Olson, Lowy, and Meyers is built on the same principle, a primary “name” and a whole bunch of people who depend on that “name.” This is my opinion, and it is true; I had a very long relationship with that firm for many years, and the good times were great times for sure.

 

The judges in Ventura County were less kind with Lisa Helfend Meyer, Esq, and the following “words” are haunting and will not ever go away…no matter what efforts are made to minimize the presence on the net.  I was present during the A.N.K.A. v A.N.K.A. episode, and I said it back in the day, a better attempt to achieve a win could not have been made on behalf of Anna Anka’s legal team.  One must wonder if the nasty and dirty attacks are having the same effects that they once were. The courts are expecting a different tone from DIVORCE attorneys today. Some of the “old-timers” behavior is being watched and monitored for sure. We will see in time.

 

Actions have consequences…

The Court of Appeals said attorney Lisa Helfend Meyer harmed the child, the child’s father, and the entire court system.  (this was taken from Lawzilla.com) Lisa Helfend Meyer objected to and appealed the trial court’s issuance of $50,000 in sanctions against the attorney personally, also extending the liability to her client.  The sanction was because Ms. Meyer allegedly disclosed confidential information from a child custody evaluation in her direct examination of a party in a separate court case.  Family Code Sections 3025.5 and 3111 describe the confidentiality of such information and the ability of the Court to sanction Parties for willful disclosure. However, these statutes have never been applied at the Courts of Appeals, making this case a case of first impression.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions against Lisa Helfend Meyer but reversed as to her client, stating, “Most clients assume their attorney’s questions are proper and will not expose them to sanctions. There is no suggestion that Anna thought otherwise.”

 

For whom the shoe drops, time marches on

 

There is another big shoe going to drop, and it is going to be “shattering” for a large firm here in Los Angeles. We will tell you “I told you so” when it happens. Please keep those special notes coming; we seriously appreciate them.

 

 

 

 

Update 11/19/21: The other big shoe has dropped. Stay tuned for the article.

 

 

By John Nazarian
©Straight Talk with John J. Nazarian, Private Investigator
May 26, 2021
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

Leave a Reply