Your voice has a chance to be heard now! - we bring changes together.

report scam

Kousha Berokim

Country United States
State California
City Beverly Hills
Address 270 N Canon Dr
Phone 310-993-3703

Kousha Berokim Reviews

  • May 1, 2017

Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC646091


Filing Date: 01/09/2017

Case Type: Legal Malpractice (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Pending

38. When Berokim sought to induce Plaintiff to engage his firm to represent Plaintiff, he promised that he would competently, promptly, and diligently provide legal services to bring the case to trial effectively. Berokim, however, inexcusably failed to do and failed to take appropriate measures to address any shortcomings of his amended complaints as well as failing to adequately prepare for and prosecute the appeal of the trial court's ruling.

39. From time to time, Plaintiff questioned Berokim about his handling of the case, especially the delay in the progression of trial. Berokim continued to tell Plaintiff "everything is going great" and "things are looking very good," although he knew that he was mishandling Plaintiffs case.

40. The statements and assurances made to Plaintiff were false. In fact, Berokim inexcusably improperly handled the case by leaving Plaintiff in a position where he had become so compromised by Berokim's failure to manage the litigation in a prudent manner that Plaintiff had no choice but to accept a settlement of $15,000. The case was mishandled from the start of Berokim's representation which led to grossly excessive, wasteful, unnecessary, and often repetitive work on the case by Berokim and personnel he hired to help him with the case. The constant and continuous mishandling of the case over the period of roughly 6 years was negligent and Berokim's conduct fell below the standard of care for attorneys in California and Los Angeles County.

41. Berokim failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in his representation of Plaintiff by the negligent and careless acts and omissions as herein alleged. Plaintiff suffered appreciable harm from Berokim's negligence and malpractice when Plaintiff was compromised in such a manner that he had no choice but to settle and compromise his claims against the Namvar Brothers and NAMCO. This sum was substantially below the true and proper value of the case,.which was at least $1.1 Million Dollars ($1, 100,000). But for the negligent mishandling of the case by Berokim, Plaintiff would not have settled for such a sum, but would have obtained a recovery commensurate with the true value of the case, and a true amount of Plaintiffs injury, in a sum of at least $1.1 Million Dollars ($1,100,000).

42. Berokim's negligent conduct included, but was not limited to the following:

- Continuous defective complaints leading to causes of action supporting the attachment of the Namvar Brothers assets being dismissed with prejudice

- Filing a defective appeal that did not appeal the dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of guaranty causes of action supporting the attachment of the Namvar Brothers assets, which ultimately caused the writ of attachment to be set aside.

43. As·a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff has been damaged by Berokim's negligence and malpractice in an amount according to proof, but at least $1.1 Million Dollars ($1, 100,000) in lost recovery and at least $1.3 Million Dollars ($1,300,000) which includes legal fees in excess of $200,000 paid to Berokim and counsel who associated with Berokim to assist with representation of Plaintiff after Berokim' s substandard care. Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain; further and additional damages as a direct result of Berokim' s legal work which was negligent and below the standard of care for attorneys in California and Los Angeles County.


WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against each defendant, jointly and severally as follows:


44. For compensatory damages according to proof, but at least $1.3 Million Dollars ($1,300,000);

45. ·For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;

46. For costs of suit herein; and

47. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 9, 2017

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Emanuel Afrahmian

Write a Review about Kousha Berokim