Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search


Ronald Veridiano Uy - #177157

Current Status:  Disbarred

This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 177157    
Address: 170 Gateway Dr
Pacifica, CA 94044
Phone Number: (650) 201-3920
Fax Number: Not Available
e-mail: rdfiqcpa@mejhaomh.comeouhggu@drkiioo.eduyjncg@ribo.comlwwdqcn@rjuukd.orgdlfcqsmh@uuqnsst.govameh@sdtjlrm.netrvulaw1@yahoo.comciouegdul@hbs.govmtgtrli@sfnbun.comoeeos@hmk.comaeap@ssjddr.orglqpoeyye@iajcr.netqhst@opasa.eduftdus@kfksh.govjmajoloqc@krhwj.orgrljbucblc@elmjpagd.nethyrc@wtqsp.govijjd@yff.eduswbcpeka@tec.eduidjhujeed@kegolq.edu 
County: San Mateo
Undergraduate School: See Registration Card;
District: District 1    
Sections: None Law School: See Registration Card;

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
3/18/2016 Disbarred  
10/31/2013 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
6/14/1995 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.

3/18/2016 Disbarment 09-O-18520 Disbarred 
10/31/2013 Ordered inactive 09-O-18520 Not Eligible To Practice Law 

Administrative Actions

This member has no public record of administrative actions.


Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

Explanation of common actions

State Bar Court Cases

NOTE: The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.

Effective Date Case Number Description
3/18/2016 09-O-18520 Opinion [PDF]

California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries

Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

March 18, 2016

Two Bay Area attorneys disbarred for collecting unearned fees

A pair of San Francisco Bay Area attorneys who ran a huge loan modification business that targeted vulnerable homeowners has been stripped of their law licenses for misconduct that demonstrated a “habitual disregard for their clients’ interests.”

STEVAN JOHN HENRIOULLE [#57282], 71, of Foster City, and RONALD VERIDIANO UY [#177157], 54, of Pacifica, were disbarred March 18, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and make restitution.

A State Bar Court hearing judge initially found Uy and Henrioulle culpable of a scheme to defraud clients by charging them fees without intending to perform legal services or by filing meritless lawsuits, as well as misconduct in nine client matters. The attorneys appealed, but a three-judge review panel upheld most of the hearing judge’s findings, including that they aided and abetted the unauthorized practice of law, engaged in moral turpitude and failed to respond to clients, account, return unearned fees, or notify the State Bar they were employing a resigned attorney.

Writing on behalf of the panel, Judge Judith A. Epstein noted that Henrioulle and Uy used a broad intake process that gave them far more clients than they could handle, and advertised to financially distressed people, many of whom spoke English as a second language. They also failed to supervise their litigation manager, a resigned attorney who made misrepresentations to clients and held himself out as entitled to practice law when he wasn’t.

“It was a system designed to fail,” Epstein wrote. “The breadth of Henrioulle and Uy’s incompetence, coupled with the nonrefundable retainers and monthly fees collected regardless of whether services were provided, greatly exacerbated the harm sustained by vulnerable clients, many of whom lost their causes of action and endured foreclosures and evictions.”

Henrioulle’s practice had previously included criminal defense, personal injury, family law, business litigation and estate planning while Uy focused on immigration, personal injury and family law. The two were introduced in 2009 by one of Uy’s employees, Tarik Soudani, who had resigned in years earlier with disciplinary charges pending against him. That year, they created the Law Offices of Uy & Henrioulle to sue lenders for predatory practices on behalf of clients facing foreclosure.

As litigation manager, Soudani was allowed to make initial contact with clients and meet with them without supervision, giving clients the impression he was licensed to practice law. At times, he introduced himself as a lawyer. Upon hiring the firm, clients were asked to sign fee agreements and charged between $3,995 and $4,500 as a nonrefundable retainer. They were then required to pay an additional monthly fee ranging from $500 to $850 and a $600 fee to an outside company for a “predatory lending-forensic loan analysis report.”

Although a hearing judge found the attorneys exploited clients for personal gain without intending to perform, the review panel concluded there was evidence they provided legal services – just not always with competence or success.

“In many instances, they failed to competently provide legal services to their clients, and many lost their homes,” Epstein wrote. “Other clients were able to keep their homes, usually through their own efforts to restructure their loans.”

Henrioulle and Uy were ordered to pay $41,314.22 plus interest in restitution to six clients. Henrioulle was ordered to pay an additional $17,610 in restitution to two other clients.

Uy had one prior record of discipline, a 2006 private reproval for failing to disburse client funds on time. Henrioulle had no prior discipline.


Start New Search »