Wieczorek v Prestige Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC712188.


From the online Los Angeles court case records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Sean Bral represented the plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging negligence..






During the lawsuit the defendant served Sean Bral, Esq'.s client with a request to produce documents and written questions to answer.

No responses were received to the discovery. The responses were due about 30 days after the discovery was served.

Five months later when the court made its order there were still no responses.

Defendant filed a motion to compel and sought sanctions against Bral and his client.

Attorney Bral did not oppose the motion.

The judge then ordered plaintiff to answer the discovery.




The judge also sanctioned Seal Bral, by name, and his client, $980 for discovery abuse.

This is an interesting situation. The judge's order is brief and does not tell us why attorney Sean Bral was sanctioned.

His client did not respond to discovery.

But we do not see where Bral did anything, such as making an improper objection, not meeting and conferring (although there is nothing in the order about any communication Bral had about why discovery was not being responded to), or wrongfully opposing a discovery motion without substantial justification.

The latter is the rub in our view.

Sean Bral did not file a motion to withdraw as counsel and did not oppose the motion for sanctions against him.

In our opinion that suggests, despite the lack of information in the judge's order, that Bral conceded he deserved to be sanctioned.

Not just sanctioned, but by not opposing the motion he let the judge make the sanctions order be enforceable as a judgment.

That means Bral's bank account and assets can potentially be levied. So can his clients.

You will have to evaluate if this is the type of representation you are looking for in an attorney.


Update: We contacted attorney Sean Bral and asked if anything we reported about the court order was incorrect, what the correction was, and if he had any additional information to provide about what happened.

Here is his response;

Your article is incomplete, inaccurate and therefore misleadings, false, libelous and defamatory.

While it is improper to comment in detail about an ongoing case for a client, we can confirm that often (as in this case) the attorney has done no wrongdoing and is actually protecting the client by submitting to a discovery motion without opposition. For example, there are many cases where the client becomes unavailable or unreachable (i.e. incarcerated, incapacitated, out of the country, and the like) during a litigation, or for some reason beyond the control of the attorney, is unable to respond properly or timely to discovery timely. As the court ruling in this case confirms, monetary sanctions only were granted against the plaintiff/client and attorney jointly. They were not solely agianst the attorney. These are things that can happen often during a litigation. Discovery monetary sanctions are not ethical violations and are not even reportable. Additionally, discovery sanctions are usually resolved and go away when cases are settled, with zero effect on the client.

My firm has been in business for over 20 years, we have successfully handled thousands of accident and injury cases, including through jury trials, court trials, verdicts, settlements, arbitrations and mediations. We have been successful in recovering many millions of dollars for our clients and continue to do so with many happy clients and significant positive reviews.

Please note that if you publish this or any other inaccurate/false article, we will take legal action to the full extent of the law against Lawzilla and personally against any individuals involved with said publishing.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Best Regards,

S. Sean Bral
Bral & Associates
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel 310.789.2007 Fax 310.789.2006
email: seanbral@gmail.com
web: www.seanbral.com

In our opinion it seems apparent to us:

1. Mr. Bral was unable to identify anything inaccurate or incomplete in the article.

It would be difficult given we were reporting about a court order and provide a link to not only the original tentative order (which became a final order), but we also took pictures of the judge's orders and highlighted statements by the judge being referred to in the article. Anything else is opinion.


2. Attorney Sean Bral seemingly does not know libel law, which is scary, and the ability to report about a public court ruling and provide opinion about what transpired.

A court order attorney Bral may not like is still a court order. Anyone can report about it and form their own opinions.

Fact is: Sean Bral was sanctioned $980. Just because he may not like that, or the sanctions be reported about, does not make it libel.

Maybe Bral should sue the judge for making some unknown incomplete or inaccurate statement in the court's order?

The last thing we would think one would want to do is hire an attorney who does not know libel law to be making threats about libel law.

The result would likely be sanctions, tons of negative publicity, then being sued for malicious prosecution.


3. It is hard to fathom how not opposing a sanctions motion is "actually protecting the client" - such as when they are incapacitated.

If his client is incapacitated, in our view an attorney would let opposing counsel and the court know what has happened to prevent harm to their client. It is a more than a reasonable excuse for not answering discovery.

It seems to us an "inability" to comply with a discovery request, such as due to incapacity, is a permitted response.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 says:




Or, the attorney could file a motion for a protective order explaining the situation and requesting that discovery be delayed until their client is competent to provide answers.

That is what motions for protective orders are for - to protect the client in situation like that.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060 says:




In our opinion we believe if an attorney let opposing counsel know their client was incapacitated and could not answer discovery there would be an agreement to continue the discovery, and trial if necessary.

We also believe if the opposing attorney did not agree that a judge would grant a protective order, and possibly sanction the other attorney for being unreasonable.

That is what we believe a good attorney would do to protect their client.

Instead, what did Sean Bral accomplish?

- He let the court order his client to answer the discovery. Incapacitated or not, there is now a court order against his client. Failure to comply can lead to more sanctions and even possibly termination of the lawsuit against his client.

- He let his client be sanctioned.

- He let himself be sanctioned.

- He let the sanctions be immediately enforceable against his client as a judgment because he did not request that accommodation in the order from the judge.

Instead of sanctions maybe going away when a case is settled we see two things that Bral has let happen:

First, he has given the defendant leverage in settlement negotiations because $980 is owed.

Would you want an attorney who is ordered to pay almost a thousand dollars in sanctions be trying to negotiate the best deal for you?

Second, Bral has given the defendant immediate leverage that can be applied without waiting until the end of the case.

It is our understanding the defendant can immediately enforce the sanctions order as a judgment, such as putting a lien on Bral's client's property or seeking to garnish his wages.

It is possible this could affect his client's credit score - a public judgment against him. Who knows how that could affect his client for years?

The same applies to attorney Bral. We believe the defendant can put a lien on Mr. Bral's property, go after his bank account, and whatever else can be done when seeking to recover a judgment.

Bottom-line: We were shocked by attorney Sean Bral's response.

In our opinion, it reflects legal incompetence.

Judges give deadlines to pay sanctions. When Sean Bral said sanctions can be resolved when a case settles, in our opinion that suggests (1) Bral and/or clients have been sanctioned before, (2) the sanctions are apparently not being paid as ordered by a judge, and (3) it is possible Bral is suggesting an illegal course of conduct, in violation of ethical rules, by not paying sanctions as ordered by a judge and instead seeing if they can be resolved if a case settles.


Ironically, one of our interests in the sanctions order was trying to determine more about what happened for further analysis and another article.

Los Angeles County seems to issue sanctions when a discovery motion is not opposed. We can usually understand from the order why an attorney was sanctioned, but it was not clear to us in the order.

On the other hand, Sacramento County is not issuing sanctions when a discovery motion is not opposed. Such as in this order:




We have seen the legal authority cited by the Sacramento County judges in orders, but we do not see that authority being addressed in Los Angeles.

It is an interesting situation.

But instead of helping us out in understanding the disparity in orders between different counties, apparently Mr. Bral would threaten frivolous litigation and likely subject himself to more sanctions, being sued for malicious prosecution and punitive damages, and then being reported to the State Bar.

As for Mr. Bral's bar history, here is a copy of his prior discipline referred to in the next secton.

We note the State Bar Court ordered that attorney Bral be:

- Publicly reproved for his misconduct which constituted a "willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct".

- Attend ethics school.

- Pass a Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination.

We also note the California State Bar order said there were no mitigating circumstances for Mr. Bral.

For instance, the State Bar order did NOT mark that Sean Bral:

Candor/Cooperation: Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.

Remorse: Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct.

Good Faith: Respondent acted in good faith.

Good Character: Respondent’s good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

Sean Bral was admitted to the California Bar in 1997. Bar Number 190489.

Bral and Associates
1875 Century Park East Suite 1770
Los Angeles, California 90067

Law School: Loyola Law School




Sean Bral was previously discliplined by the California State Bar.

He represented numerous individuals in an auto accident case, but his clients had potentially conflicting interests.

He did not properly obtain written and informed consent to represent his clients with this conflict issue.

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.