FOLLOW US

By Samuel López | USA Herald

The lawyers who helped build one of Southern California’s most recognizable personal injury firms are now fighting for something far more personal than a lawsuit victory: their professional reputations.

In a move that has sent shockwaves through California’s legal community, the State Bar of California has filed disciplinary charges against Farid Yaghoubtil, one of the founding partners of Downtown LA Law Group, alleging a pattern of unauthorized multi-state legal practice that stretched from Texas to Maryland, Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan, and Virginia.

Similar allegations have also been filed against Daniel Azizi, a founding partner of the personal injury firm, and Igor Fradkin, a litigation attorney, who on Monday was charged with signing up accident victims across the U.S., despite having no attorneys who could litigate the cases outside California, according to the complaint.

The charges arrive as Downtown LA Law Group remains under intense public scrutiny because of its involvement in thousands of sexual abuse claims filed against Los Angeles County—litigation that ultimately contributed to what has become a staggering multibillion-dollar settlement exposure for taxpayers.

But beneath the headlines lies a more complicated question that deserves serious examination.

Is this a case about protecting the public from unauthorized legal practice?

Or is it another example of aggressive regulatory enforcement against attorneys involved in high-profile, high-stakes litigation that places powerful institutions under pressure?

At this stage, the answer remains far from clear.

The State Bar’s 53-page Notice of Disciplinary Charges against DTLA attorney Farid Yaghoubtil, alleges that he and DTLA entered into attorney-client relationships with individuals located outside California, negotiated claims arising under the laws of other states, collected contingency fees, and in some instances allegedly performed legal work before obtaining local counsel or pro hac vice authorization. The allegations describe a nationwide operation that prosecutors contend crossed ethical and jurisdictional boundaries.

The charging document also points to marketing materials, fee agreements, settlement negotiations, and client communications as evidence supporting the State Bar’s theory that DTLA functioned as a de facto national law practice despite its California roots.

Yet there is another side to this discussion that many observers believe deserves equal attention.