Kim v Sung, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC603506.



Kevin Jang is listed in the appellate court records as the attorney for the plaintiff filing the appeal. He is also listed in the Los Angeles Superior Court records as the attorney for the plaintiff. He did not file the original lawsuit, but substituted in as plaintiff's lawyer and appears to have been responsible for the trial and appeal.











From the court of appeals ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

The plaintiff sued a co-worker for falsely claiming that she wanted to set the building they worked in on fire, and she was fired as a result.

After Kevin Jang put on his client's case at trial the defendant requested a nonsuit because he had not proven her claims. The trial judge agreed and granted the motion.




Jang then filed an appeal.

The justices unanimously agreed that attorney Kevin Jang had not provided any references to the record in the case, and had not provided adequate analysis or legal authority to support his client's claims; they were unable to evaluate the appeal. The court of appeal then ruled for the defendant.




In reaching this conclusion, the justices noted the following:

Kevin Jang, Esq., ran out of witnesses on only the second day of trial. He asked for a recess so he could call two more witnesses the next day. The judge asked what the witnesses would say. After Jang made an offer of proof, the trial judge said there had not been proof of the claims and the two witnesses testimony would not be providing that proof. The judge then shut-down Jang and said his client had rested and her case was done. The court then granted judgment for defendant.




The justices indicated attorney Jang's opening appellate brief was only 1.5 pages long for facts and history. A page of facts and half a page about the procedural history of the case.

Not a single citation to the case transcript was made.




The justices said in a situation like this the issues are forfeited.

It is up to the attorney for their client to provide analysis and legal support that shows an error which caused a prejudicial result at trial.






Lawzilla Commentary and Review: We review many rulings and appeals and this is one of the worst reflecting on attorney competence.

It is just one case, and one ruling, but if reflective of how Kevin Jang handles cases we think he should find another line of work. We do not recommend he be retained as legal counsel. Or maybe he should find legal work that does not involve trials and appeals.

In our opinion it is basic lawyering that one know how to prove a case - whether in trial or on appeal.

A very simple and easy process is a trial book that lists the elements of the claims and next to each element the evidence supporting the claim and who provides the evidence. This helps an attorney know if they can prove a claim or not and to check off the evidence they need to submit.

Here, Kevin Jang's client got nonsuited at trial because he had not provided evidence supporting his client's claims and, from our read of the opinion, seemed to be unaware of the situation. He ran out of witnesses and had not ensured that his own client's testimony proved her claims. Ouch. His own offer of proof about what the other two witnesses would say reportedly also did not prove his client's case. The defendant did not even need to put on a defense.

Then, it seems he did nothing for the appeal except essentially file an appeal. A one-two page brief as described by the judges without any citations and legal analysis establishing prejudicial error is embarrassing and suggests a lack of effort.

Kevin Jang was admitted to the California Bar in 2011. Bar Number 276784.

Kevin H. Jang, A Law Corporation
3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300
Los Angeles, California 90010

Law School: Thomas Cooley Law School