BROCKET

BROCKET v. Moore

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 86·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 421·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3018·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2418
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 2003C038317California6,952 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

In adopting the Unlawful Detainer Assistants Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6400 et seq., UDAA) the Legislature found in part that “there currently exist numerous unscrupulous individuals . . . who purport to offer protection to tenants from eviction. The[y] . . . represent themselves as legitimate tenants’ rights associations, legal consultants, professional legal assistants, paralegals, attorneys, or typing services. . . . The acts of these unscrupulous individuals ... are particularly despicable in that they target low-income and non-English-speaking Californians as victims for their fraudulent practices.” (Stats. 1993, ch. 1011, § 1, pp. 5721-5722.)

Under names such as “Legal Aid” and “Legal Aid Services” defendant Walter Moore operates a business which purports to offer typing services, particularly in eviction cases. Victims of Moore’s deception (Mark Brockey, Dawn Gayler, Fred Pavloff and Frank Word, collectively Brockey) were eventually directed to Legal Services of Northern California’s Redding office and obtained representation in the underlying cases and in this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief.

A jury found Moore practiced law in violation of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.