PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY VS AMIE BLACKMAN - Robert S. Weinstein is stated by the judge in this ruling as the attorney for respondent. This representation is also reflected in online court records available from the Los Angeles County court.

In this shocking tentative ruling the Los Angeles County judge basically calls attorney Robert Weinstein a liar and then sanctions him $580. This is one of the more severe orders about an attorney and their truthfulness we have seen. Per the ruling and other court records this is what happened:

Robert Weinstein, Esq. represented the respondent in this uninsured motorist claim by Progressive Insurance.

Requests for the production of documents and written questions to be answered were served on attorney Weinstein's client to answer.

Normally, verified answers are due in about thirty days. The answers were originally due in August 2017.

Progressive then gave Weinstein an extension of time to get client responses served.

Progressive than gave at least one more extension of time.

Ultimately, nothing was forthcoming from Weinstein's law office and motions to compel were filed in March 2018.

In a response prepared by attorney Robert Weinstein, and in a declaration he filed under penalty of perjury, Weinstein claimed responses were provided in January 2018.

So who was right? Was discovery served in January and the March motion was moot and improperly made?

Or was Weinstein lying about serving the responses?

The judge said that despite attorney Robert Weinstein's representation:

1. The proof of service did not have the name of the person supposedly serving the response, and

2. The signature was a scribble.

The judge then sanctioned attorney Robert Weinstein personally for $580, and ordered that discovery responses be made.

In other words - the judge said, in a polite way, attorney Robert Weinstein was a liar. Basically, that Weinstein faked a discovery response to try and avoid sanctions.

That is our opinion of what the court said in the tentative ruling.

Would you hire Robert S. Weinstein to be your attorney?

Are you kidding? The amount of monetary sanctions is trivial compared to a judge saying an attorney is not believable.

From our online research we do not believe attorney Robert S. Weinstein has a large law firm. It could be just himself. Maybe also a secretary. The point being his other court filings probably list the name of a single person serving documents with their signature. Weinstein does not have a thousand attorney law firm with dozens of potential people serving and signing documents. The judge had that information.

When the judge notes a name is missing from a key document and the signature is just a scribble that is a red flag. We read that, plus the award of sanctions, as indicating the judge did not believe attorney Weinstein.

Moreover, if attorney Robert Weinstein was believable that responses had previously been served the judge would not have also ordered that responses actually be served.

Bottom line: We do not see how attorney Robert S. Weinstein can effectively represent clients in the Los Angeles court when a judge does not view him as truthful.

was admitted to the California Bar in 1989. Bar Number 140412.

Robert Weinstein, Esq.
11150 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1120
Los Angeles, California 90064

Law School: Loyola