Mashhoud v Quality Loan Service, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 17CIV01975.



Mark Lapham is listed by the court of appeals as the plaintiff and appellant for this matter.




He is also listed by the San Mateo Superior Court as the attorney for the plaintiff when the lawsuit was filed.






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

Lapham's client lost his property in a foreclosure sale. He then filed a lawsuit claiming the foreclosure was unlawful.

The lawsuit prepared by attorney Lapham was "not very clear". (Neither was the brief the lawyer filed for the appeal.)






The defendant challenged the lawsuit by filing a demurrer. The challenge said the lawsuit was filed too late and was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the claims in the complaint failed to allege proper causes of action for various reasons.

The trial judge granted the demurrer and dismissed the lawsuit.




Lapham then filed an appeal for this client. In the appeal Mark Lapham, Esq., argued the statute of limitations issue.

Defendants then responded, and noted there was other reasons for the demurrer besides the statute of limitations.

Lapham did not bother to file a reply.




The court of appeal said it is "well established" that it will affirm a trial court's ruling if there is any basis for the ruling.

Since Mark Lapham did not argue all the possible reasons why the trial court granted the demurrer - choosing to only argue the statute of limitations issue - Lapham in effect "forfeited" the appeal and court of appeals was required to affirm the trial judge's decision.

The court of appeal then ruled against Lapham's client, noting it was not going to bother to address the statute of limitations since it was obligated to affirm the ruling.






Lawzilla Commentary and Review: From what we have read this seems to be terrible lawyering. The court of appeal basically said the attorney "forfeited" the case by not addressing all the issues.

Our understanding is if there were three possible reasons why a judge ruled a certain way, a party has to argue all three reasons were wrong. If they only argue one reason, even if they are right, they still lose because of the other two reasons.

This seems like basic lawyering to us. Heck, one does not even need to be a lawyer to figure this out.

Based on this, and the fact Mark Lapham has been suspended from practicing law multiple times, we do not recommend that this attorney be retained.

Mark Lapham was admitted to the California Bar in 1990. Bar Number 146352.

Law Offices of Mark Lapham
751 Diablo Road
Danville, California 94526

Law School: Gonzaga




The California State Bar is reporting that attorney Mark Lapham has been suspended from the practice of law multiple times.

Lapham was convicted of an offense violating the code of military justice.

He was sanctioned by a judge and failed to report the sanctions to the Bar.

He also filed a bankruptcy petition relating to property that was not owned by a client.

Note: It appears to us from an online map search that Lapham's office address of 751 Diablo Road is a personal residence.