Rhony Laigo PinoyWatchDog.com JoelBanderLaw Two former clients tell harrowing tales after hiring atty james beirne


Published on

Rhony Laigo PinoyWatchDog.com JoelBanderLaw Two former clients tell harrowing tales after hiring atty james beirne

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rhony Laigo PinoyWatchDog.com JoelBanderLaw Two former clients tell harrowing tales after hiring atty james beirne

  1. 1. Two Former Clients Tell Harrowing Tales After Hiring Atty JamesBeirneBy Jenilene Francisco and Rene VillaromanPinoyWatchDog.com StaffCALLING ALL FILIPINO-AMERICANS, LISTEN TO US Two brave former clients of famous GlendaleAttorney James Beirne are among those who have contacted PinoyWatchDog.com to exposethe Glendale-based lawyer for failing to deliver legal services, harrowing experiences thatnegatively impacted their lives.Reynaldo Anson Villarica – Beirne Used False/Non Existent Companies Reynaldo Anson Villarica, who hails from theprovince of Cavite, told PWD that he was able to breathe normally for the first time in manyyears after he read an advertisement in the pages of PinoyWatchDog.com seeking stories aboutAttorney James Beirne’s victims.“They kicked the air out of my lungs,” Villarica said, who first sought Beirne’s assistance tosecure a work authorization and a green card in 2001.He felt alone and powerless, but “now I knew there were others who would support me.”Villarica stated that he found hope that his case could be revived and possibly continued by
  2. 2. another company that would be willing to file a petition on in his behalf after Atty. Beirne failed tosecure work authorization for him since he first consulted him in 2001.Villarica recounts the Beirne’s law office had filed three different petitions using three differentcompanies, all of which turned out to be non-existent. “Every two years, pinapalitan yungcompany,” Villarica said, The first petition was made through a company known as ExecutiveAviation, followed two years later by Quad Medical Services; and the third petition throughFamily Care Homes. “Pagkatapos nuon, itinago na nila sa akin (After those petitions weredenied, they hid everything from me). Kasi, pag binasa mo yung mga letters, wala silangmaipasok na lisensiya sa EDD (Employment Development Department). Parang nakakasira ngulo,” Villarica said. Investigations conducted by a PWD staff member revealed that these threecompanies were nonexistent during the times that these petitions for Mr. Villarica were beingmade by the law office of Atty Beirne.For instance, the first company, Executive Aviation Services, did not exist at the time of theapplication. PWD has also learned that even the address, using “Hangar 22” at the ChinoAirport, does not exist. When PWD called the number used in the application we were informedby the woman that answered that for a decade she had been receiving calls by peoplesearching out others who had committed wrongdoing, and that she had nothing to withExecutive Aviation Services.“This was a common practice with some shady immigration lawyers during the big 245(i) push inthe beginning of 2001,” said an immigration lawyer who had processed hundreds of laborcertifications in that time period and who asked to not be identified for fear of retribution fromBeirne’s colleagues. “Everyone was scampering for employer sponsors, and many lawyers didnot verify whether the employers provided were legitimate. It got a lot of people into trouble,” thelawyer said.Villarica said he was directed to these employers by an outside agent of Attorney Beirne. Whenhe confronted the office after making some discoveries, Ching Mendoza of the Beirne LawOffice threatened him with words to the effect that “they knew powerful people and he better nottell anyone what happened.”All in all, Villarica, by his estimate, had paid Beirne’s law office some $7,000.00, never got anyvisa, and in the end received only threats.“Nakahinga ako ng maluwag (I was able to breath easy) for the first time in many years after Iread your newspaper,” Villarica said.Gertrudes and Rick Pecaoco – Judge to Atty Beirne – ‘You Filed the Wrong Petition’
  3. 3. A couple from Burbank also contacted PWD to airtheir grievances against Atty Beirne. The Pecaocos were no longer able to afford the $6,000-amonth mortgage payment on their house and it was on the verge of foreclosure when theysought the legal advice of Atty Beirne. Unfortunately, the Pecaocos said recently to PWD, “Thehelp and assistance they perused in Beirne’s advertisements (published in Balita) were notmet.”PWD had previously reported that the L.A. Superior Court had recently ordered Attorney Beirneto cease this type of deceptive, false advertising. It appears that Attorney Beirne is nowcomplying with this court order and no longer places false advertising in Balita newspapers.
  4. 4. According to the couple, they only met with Beirne’s assistant, Ruby Sexon, who explainedvarious bankruptcy procedures. PinoyWatchdog.com has learned that Sexon has no formallegal training even though she was the only assistant the couple ever met at the law office. Ricksays that Sexon advised them to stop paying the mortgage and some important bills. With everyletter received regarding their house and notice to vacate, Beirne’s law office and Sexon wouldsimply say that their bankruptcy petition would be filed. “It’s more of everything was justpaperwork,” says Gertrudes. “Sabi naman niya, pag-aaralan nila ito,” she added.Regardless of Sexon’s reassurances and claims, the negligence and lack of concern for clientswas revealed at the hearing when, for the first time, Gertrudes actually Gertrudes furtherexpressed her sentiments of not feeling secure even after finally meeting the attorney himself.“Parang, he was just there to file it. But he didn’t care to be concerned of ano ba talaga anggusto mo? How can I be there to help you? What do you want to do?” Simply put, “He was nothelpful. He was not concerned.” The case was eventually pulled out. “Dismissed ang kaso ko.Bali wala.”As for a refund, the couple assures that the only refund they received was for the lien strippingwhich was between $3 to 4 thousand out of an estimated $10,000 in total that the couple saysthey paid the law firm. Gertrudes said, the refund for the lien stripping would never have beenreturned if she had not demanded for it. “Nung tumawag ako, sabi ko pwede ba irefund. Kasi na
  5. 5. dismiss naman yung kaso. Sabi n’ya (Ruby Sexon) dismissed or not dismissed hindi nakailangan ang refund.”The Pecaocos also spoke about the hassle and inconvenience they experienced with Beirne’slaw office. They said that simple questions regarding their case and files could not be answeredover the phone. “I don’t know, but it was easier for them to collect money than really helpingout,” says Gertrudes. “Yung feeling mo na matutulungan ka, wala rin. If you don’t call, they’renot going to do anything.” A direct trip to the office was needed. Even then, proper direction,guidance, and answers to their questions were never seen. “They won’t even entertain you,”says Rick.Needless to say, the couple’s grievances with their overall experience with Beirne can still befelt. As Rick expresses near the end of the interview, their initial case was manageable andcould have been properly handled had they not consultedwith Atty Beirne, but went to an attorney who actually reviewed the case, and not leaving thematter up to an untrained assistant such as Ruby Sexon.PinoyWatchDog.com has earlier reported that Ruby Sexon was the Beirne staff member thatmishandled the case of Diosdado and Janet Duldulao, whose home was actually foreclosedupon when Sexon failed to file the bankruptcy petition.