Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

 

Harpreet Singh Brar - #206460

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: 206460    
Address: # 310
2500 E Imperial Hwy Ste 201
Brea, CA 92821
Phone Number: (714) 784-3226
Fax Number: (714) 784-3227
e-mail: jrbsisa@ykfrcin.govwkawag@dauw.govdidik@filfhekn.edunfia@fwh.govcwgcpqfru@lqusftp.orgyuuermhq@kriioy.netrqofqpt@qajjhfep.eduhcmbroqms@tqw.netsjny@ckc.eduyeuj@crmns.govHSBrar@lawyer.comnwhrjpm@uuoqc.edudqdobmp@knmb.orgwdapirwhb@qbqhjt.orgjkbn@fotacbu.comhejt@ynshjcu.edurorkqh@per.comfwsibsq@dhlb.govlppakjlk@epqr.govndlgaucbh@njlkrdsr.net 
County: Orange
Undergraduate School: No Information Available;
District: District 4    
Sections: None Law School: Western State Univ COL; Fullerton CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
7/12/2008 Disbarred  
3/12/2007 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
5/16/2006 Active  
4/16/2006 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
4/21/2000 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.

7/12/2008 Disbarment 05-O-01086 Disbarred 
1/20/2008 Ordered inactive 05-O-01086 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
9/21/2007 Interim suspension after conviction 06-C-11316 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
6/20/2007 Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 04-O-11096 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
3/12/2007 Ordered inactive 05-O-01086 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
4/16/2006 Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-11096 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
7/12/2008 05-O-01086 Decision [PDF] [WORD]
7/12/2008 05-O-01086 Order [PDF]
7/12/2008 05-O-01086 Decision [PDF] [WORD]

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.

July 12, 2008

HARPREET S. BRAR [#206460], 37, of Brea was disbarred July 12, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Brar gained notoriety in 2003 for filing hundreds of lawsuits that then-Attorney General Bill Lockyer said violated the state Unfair Competition Law, also known as §17200 of the Business & Professions Code. Lockyer accused Brar of engaging in illegal business practices and called his firm “a quick-buck racket that has inflicted financial harm on law-abiding small business owners.”

In recommending his disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn said Brar “has engaged in a nearly continuous course of serious misconduct” since shortly after his 2000 admission to the bar. He “used the legal system as part of a scheme to extract settlements from small businesses for his own enrichment and in violation of court orders preventing him from doing so,” Honn wrote in the disbarment recommendation. The judge said Brar’s actions amount to “serious breaches” of an attorney’s fundamental ethical mores.

Brar sued more than 400 nail salon owners in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, alleging they violated health and safety codes by using the same bottle of nail polish on more than one customer. His firm, Brar & Gamulin, also sued 140 ethnic grocery stores, charging them with video piracy for not labeling videotapes correctly. In 2004, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Polos ordered Brar to pay nearly $1.8 million in civil penalties as well as sanctions and enjoined him from filing any more cases under 17200 without meeting requirements in the Civil Code. The judge called Brar “basically an extortionist.”

Despite the order, Brar filed three new lawsuits under 17200 within nine months, accusing 237 named defendants and 750 “Doe” defendants of not posting notices of fees charged at ATM machines in their stores. Most of the defendants owned liquor or convenience stores. There was no relationship among the defendants and no question of common fact among them. As was his pattern in earlier lawsuits, Brar sent the defendants threatening letters in which he offered to settle the matter for roughly $750 and encouraged a quick settlement in order to avoid additional fees and costs.

Polos held Brar in contempt and sentenced him to 15 days in jail.

Prior to the Orange County judgment, Brar had filed suit against 55 named defendants and 100 Does for allegedly violating the Immigration Consultants Act by failing to post a bond required by the code. Honn found that Brar filed the matters “for an improper purpose, namely to conduct volume litigation . . . with minimal overhead so as to maximize profits from settlements.” By improperly joining defendants, Brar avoided paying filing fees of $185 each for separate actions.

The bar court found that Brar committed 17 acts of misconduct: he disobeyed court orders, filed unjust actions, committed acts of moral turpitude, failed to pay court-ordered sanctions and did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He never paid any civil penalties or sanctions.

Brar also was convicted of five felony counts of tax evasion last July and is currently serving one year in the county jail. The bar placed him on interim suspension following the convictions. He has been ineligible to practice law since March 2007.

April 16, 2006

HARPREET SINGH BRAR [#206460], 34, of Brea was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 16, 2006.

Brar was sued in 2003 by the California attorney general in an effort to stop him from improperly prosecuting private attorney general lawsuits filed under §17200 of the Business & Professions Code. In response, Brar filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contending the lawsuit should be dismissed because it was a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

However, the attorney general’s office is officially exempted from anti-SLAPP motions.

When the motion was denied, Brar appealed. The appeal stayed his obligation to respond to the AG’s demand for discovery, which was overdue, and forced postponement of a case management conference. The appeal subsequently was dismissed, with the court stating, “This is about as patently frivolous an appeal taken for purposes of delay as is imaginable.”

The case was returned to the trial court, where Brar allowed his default to be entered. After a final judgment was issued, he appealed. The appeal was pending at the time of the bar’s disciplinary proceedings.

The bar court found that Brar’s anti-SLAPP motion and appeal were based on unjust legal arguments and that he pursued an action with corrupt motive, acting in bad faith.

In another matter, the court found that he commingled funds in his client trust account, using it to pay personal and business expenses.


Start New Search »