"The Court finds that counsel's statement was a purposeful attempt to deceive the Court. The discrepancy between what was represented to the Court and what was the truth is such a large and glaring one as to obviate any belief that the misstatement was the product of mistake or oversight on counsel's part." [See page 8, lines 13-17 of document to right=>]
"Plaintiff's counsel's billing practices are nothing short of appalling. Counsel may rest assured that any future request for fees and costs made to this Court will be subjected to the absolute strictest scrutiny." [See footnote 8 on page 7 of document to right =>]
Mr. Singleton claimed: "I have handled many hundreds of access cases. . . . Very large casinos in Nevada, the state of California, several counties and cities, as well as other very large corporate chains have attempted to defense some of my clients. All have failed." [see highlighted text on second page of document to right =>]
But was that really true? See case at right, in which the State of California prevailed (see item 98 of docket to right =>) and a judgment of $2,315.68 was awarded against his client (see entry at 7/11/03 in document to the right =>).
Mr. Singleton claimed: "PLAINTIFF'S attorney has made a thorough investigation of the Subject Property and represents through PLAINTIFF that he is not aware of any other violations of any laws governing access to the disabled at the Subject Property." [see paragraph 11 on page 6 of document at right and signature at page 8; note court file stamp on first page =>]
But was that really true?
Q: " . . . to the best of your knowledge, is that correct?"
Mr. Singleton: "That was a term that the defendant's attorney wanted"
Q: "But is it true?"
Mr. Singleton: "I don't think I ever went to that property."
[see highlights at pages 3 and 4 of attached document]
Watch out! The ultimate threat: If he proposes trading his client's claim against yours in exchange for a malpractice claim against you, would some clients find this irresistible? (see documents to right =>)
Each of the following lawsuits (100% of those we've been able to obtain) claims the plaintiff was physically injured (see paragraph 48 of each complaint):