Herren
Herren v. George S.
Opinion
Opinion
Discussion. We refer to the protected person, George S., by his first name and last initial. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90.) So as not to defeat the objective of anonymity, we likewise refer to persons who share his last name by their first name and last initial. For the sake of efficiency, and with no disrespect intended, after these initial references, subsequent references to these persons will be to their first names only. All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1 protective order against defendant Jaime B. Herren, a lawyer who had met with George alone in 2024 and secured his agreement to pay a $100,000 retainer. (§ 15657.03.) After a contested hearing, the trial court issued a restraining order prohibiting Herren from abusing and contacting George. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject Herren’s contentions that a restraining order could not be sought or issued under the Elder Abuse Act without the trial court first adjudicating George’s competence. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Herren committed financial abuse of an elder. (See §§ 15610.07, 15610.30, subd. (a)(3),…