Rossdale v Moquin, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 16CV299730.


From the court's tentative ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Plaintiff retained attorney Brian Moquin to represent it in a lawsuit and paid him a flat fee of $10,000.

Later, Moquin was either excused by the court, or withdrew as counsel.














Plaintiff then sued attorney Moquin for legal malpractice.




During the lawsuit plaintiff served various discovery requests, including requests for admissions, requests to produce documents, and written questions to answer.

Several extensions of time, of about four months, were given to Brian Moquin to provide answers.

Ultimately, a motion was filed with the court.

The judge ordered admissions deemed admitted, that the other discovery be answered, and sanctions be paid.

Despite the court order, Brian Moquin, Esq., did not provide discovery responses or pay the sanctions.

In addition to being sued for malpractice and sanctioned by the judge, what caught our attention was the judge's recitation of allegations in the complaint against Moquin.

These are just allegations, in a tentative order, and the judge was not ruling whether they are true or not - but they are fascinating nonetheless:

The court excused Moquin from his representation in the Underlying Action on September 10, 2015 finding Moquin had missed multiple deadlines and failed to do any work for over one year. (Complaint, ¶31.)

The court dismissed the Underlying Action with prejudice noting defendant Moquin, among others, prosecuted the case in the wrong name. (Complaint, ¶¶32 – 33.)

Moquin did not perform tasks required of him and did not maintain contact with Lunden/ Rossdale. (Complaint, ¶¶34 – 59 and 65.)

Toward the end of his representation of Rossdale, Moquin admitted he had been terminated from other matters, had been evicted from his residence (which doubles as his office)

Was experiencing marital problems

Was reprimanded by a judge

Was advised by a California judge that the court had referred Moquin for discipline

Had been the target of a disciplinary grievance filed by another client

Was under the influence of various narcotics adversely affecting his ability to practice law. (Complaint, ¶60.)

Wow.

Just wow.

Again, just allegations in a complaint (that Moquin probably denied in an answer) the judge decided to include in a tentative court order, but based on this it is hard to imagine recommending that Brian Moquin be hired as an attorney.


Update: We reached out to Mr. Moquin regarding the claims and if anything was untrue to provide a correction. His response:

"Publish at your peril. None of the allegations are true."

So is attorney Brian Moquin going to sue the judge?

We are only reporting what is stated in a court order, and we specifically noted it was allegations and there is not yet a ruling on their truthfulness.

However, we are reasonably confident the judge would not lie when stating Moquin had not answered discovery, had been sanctioned, had not paid the sanctions, and what the allegations against Moquin are in the lawsuit.

Brian Moquin was admitted to the California Bar in 2008. Bar Number 257583.

Law Offices of Brian P. Moquin
1476 East Westminster Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105

Law School: Concord Law School

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.