Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

Fari Bari Nejadpour - #216925

Attorney Provided Information

The information below was provided by the attorney and has not been verified or monitored. The State Bar does not recommend or endorse any attorney.

Practice Area(s):
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Appellate Practice
Banking Law
Business Law
Commercial Law
Construction Law
Criminal Law
Family Law
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Professional Liability
Real Estate
Trusts & Estates
White Collar Crime

Other Language(s) Spoken by this Attorney:

Other Language(s) Spoken by the Law Office Staff:
Chinese - Mandarin

www.Divorcelaws.biz & www.lalawinc.com

Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

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

Bar Number: 216925
L.A. Law Inc.
8200 Wilshire Blvd Ste 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2315
Map it
Phone Number: (310) 954-9595
Fax Number: (213) 632-5299
e-mail: Not Available 
Undergraduate School:
See Registration Card;
Law School:
California Southern LS; Riverside CA
County: Los Angeles
District: District 2
Family Law
Real Property Law

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
1/30/2015 Active  
12/19/2012 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
8/21/2010 Active  
2/21/2010 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
12/4/2001 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.

12/19/2012 Discipline w/actual suspension 10-O-08276 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 
2/21/2010 Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-15235 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 

Administrative Actions

7/2/2013 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 

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
1/30/2015 14-V-5807 Decision [PDF] [WORD]
12/19/2012 10-O-8276 Stipulation [PDF]
2/21/2010 04-O-15235 Stipulation [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.

December 19, 2012

FARI BARI NEJADPOUR [#216925], 50, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Dec. 19, 2012.

Nejadpour stipulated to four counts of misconduct in two matters.

A couple paid him an advance fee for legal work related to adoption of their foster children. Shortly after Nejadpour was hired, the husband died and the wife hired Nejadpour for an additional $10,000 to probate the estate. California court rules prohibit lawyers from accepting advance fees in a probate matter until approved by the court. Although Nejadpour did a little work, he did nothing to advance the probate and it could not be completed. The wife hired a new lawyer, who asked Nejadpour to refund the advance fee, which he did not do for nearly two years. The new lawyer completed the probate and the court expressly denied Nejadpour’s $10,000 fee.

He stipulated that he collected an illegal fee and failed to refund advance fees or perform legal services with competence.

In the second matter, Nejadpour sued someone in 2007 for personal injuries arising from an alleged physical altercation at a courthouse. During the 2010 trial, Nejadpour said he had never admitted to making misrepresentations in court. However, in a 2009 stipulation with the State Bar, he admitted committing three acts of moral turpitude by concealing material facts in a dissolution from the parties and from the superior court overseeing the dissolution. The judge found for the defendant in the personal injury matter, and found that Nejadpour had made misrepresentations. He stipulated that his conduct involved moral turpitude.

In the 2009 stipulation, Nejadpour concealed facts about the nature of his relationship with the realty company which was owned by his wife.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar by entering into a stipulation.

February 21, 2010

FARI BARI NEJADPOUR [#216925], 48, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with an actual suspension of six months, and he must take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Feb. 21, 2010.

Nejadpour stipulated that he did not inform opposing counsel, their clients and the court in three divorce cases that he was the owner and his wife the realtor in the company that was listing the community property houses for sale. Nor did he inform his clients in writing, as required. He also did not inform parties on both sides that they could seek advice from an independent attorney relating to the fact he had a financial interest that might not be to their advantage.

Start New Search »