402 West Broadway, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 T: (310) 499-8767, E: richardhamar@aol.com
  • Side-bar links

  • Testimonials

    Richard Hamar


  • Noteworthy Cases

    DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HISPANICS

    After winning the defense of an asbestos case against a local businessman and his wife/partner in civil court, the Hamars were later visited by the clients, who explained the problems they were having in the political arena.

    The City of Los Angeles was seeking proposals for a family fun park, which was to include miniature golf, go carts, a batting cage, and a restaurant.The clients, a Hispanic husband and wife, traveled to many cities that had theme parks and consulted several experts. They submitted a first class proposal with state of the art equipment and management in a timely manner.

    The clients had a dream that families , many being Hispanics in this part of Los Angeles, would have safe and enjoyable recreation at this park. The clients, who have a food service business, had spent $450,000.00 on renovations of the food area and preparation of the proposal. The clients also guaranteed $27,000,000.00 of income to the City over a ten year period.

    Since no one of substance had submitted a bid against the clients, families would benefit and the City would reap substantial income, this seemed like an easy decision for the five member Commission of the Department of Recreation and Parks Department.

    The proceedings did not go as expected as the Commission conducted itself in a most unprofessional manner. Richard Hamar agreed to represent the client and make a presentation at a Commission hearing.

    As the acrimonious hearing proceeded, it was established that the Staff had found a panel that never visited the site and had no experience with this type of operation. Despite, the clients’ insistence that they had no IRS liens and a good Dun and Bradstreet report, the panel gave the clients a low grade.

    At the hearing, Richard Hamar established that the negative financial information was false – supplied by staff. The law firm then found the competition against the clients was none other than the Staff, using a different name for its competitive bid – which was blatantly illegal under charter rules.The Hamars also discovered that the City/Staff had not endorsed the commitment to honor minority benefits, an ironclad rule of the bid procedure.

    Ordering transcripts of all the hearings, Hamar and Hamar discovered that some critical tapes were “erased” under very dubious circumstances. The transcripts that were available as well as the documents were very disturbing. A Commissioner, who was a lobbyist/attorney, had tried to put a halt to the proceedings because someone she was championing had missed the filing deadline. Upon investigating this person, the Hamars discovered he had previously filed bankruptcy and had been convicted of fraud.

    Having thrown out the staff’s illegal bids by now, the clients were the only legitimate bidders. They had financing in place, filed a declaration to place a guarantee bond and still had the management team and plans in place.

    Still with everything in place, the vote was 3-1 against the clients with one absentee Commissioner. Given the bizarre procedures and arbitrary actions, the Hamars knew they could file a writ in administrative mandamus to have a judge review the matter for abuse of discretion. Additionally, in digging deeper into the question of hidden motives of the panel, the Hamars found revealing evidence.

    A statistical review of every Recreation and Parks concession awarded in the last twenty-five years, determined that no Hispanic or African American had been awarded a full term concession. Out of 75 concessions, these minority groups were shut out. On the rare occasions that Hispanics received the right to labor in a City park, a revocable permit for a matter of days was given. No reason for revocation had to be stated. The Anglos were routinely getting concessions of up to 30 years, while Hispanics that were granted rights had them only for a matter of days.

    Coincidentally, at this time, police officers were routinely treating Hispanics differently. Furthermore, the Los Angeles Grand Jury was being hard pressed to explain why with such a large population, only 6% of the Grand Jury members have been Hispanic.

    The Hamars filed a lawsuit for $108,000,000. The matter is in litigation.

    FAMILY GANGS UP ON ILLITERATE DAUGHTER

    When Rose Wallace first visited the firm, she was sorrowful and frightened. Her brothers and sisters had sued her to have the court impose a constructive trust on the property that had been deeded to her by her deceased mother.Rose could not read nor write.

    Rose’s mother, Eunice, had nine children. One had died prior to the litigation. Although Rose was the closest child to her mother, and had always taken care of her property, the brothers and sisters were shocked to learn that Rose was deeded three of the four homes left by the mother. The oldest daughter began a campaign to have Rose share the property with her brothers and sisters. This turned into a hardball negotiating session and harrassment, including with foul language, threats and hounding Rose at work – all secretly tape recorded by the oldest sister.

    The group of siblings also prepared a document for Rose to sign, redeeding all the property to the oldest sister, even though Rose could not read the document.

    Though Rose had originally intended to share her property with her siblings, their intimidating behavior caused her to change her mind and take the matter to court.

    The Hamars discovered through a tape expert, that the older sister had altered the tapes for her benefit. The Hamars also found the notary public, who remembered the deed process from Eunice to Rose as being amicable and routine.

    The Hamars impeached a sister during a deposition.

    The jury decided in favor of Rose on the contract action; no contract or agreement existed to give away her property.

    On the constructive trust cause of action, the jury recommended that Rose keep all but one property. The judge followed the jurors’ recommendation.

    SEXUAL HARRASSMENT – A LAWYER’S NIGHTMARE

    For obvious reasons, the names and location of this case are too sensitive to reveal. Suffice it to say, this lawyer was a partner in one of the largest law firms in the United States that is not based in Los Angeles.
    The damages claimed as a result of this graphic account of sexual assault were astronomical. Virtually every type of doctor and a psychiatrist were on board for the Plaintiff.
    However, the Plaintiff and her case began to unravel at her multi-day deposition. Erratic behavior, outbursts, mood changes and racing out of the deposition room were caught on this televised deposition. Variations of the story and revelations of athletic prowess surfaced.
    The aim of the investigation was to see that no rock was left uncovered. A witness, at first reluctant, agreed to talk. He gave a statement that within one week after the allegations and despite claims of being unable to work, the secretary was working for cash under the table with checks going to a relative of hers. The checks bore the fatal connection.
    This case was dismissed with prejudice without one cent being paid in tribute.
    This fine lawyer and person is working hard to reestablish a professional life that was shaken to the core.

    STANDING UP FOR THE AGED

    A very clever and dynamic woman has learned to buy real estate with oral incentives to the uninitiated, knowing that she will not have to perform. When an 80 year old man was trapped by her in such a scheme his personal property that was his life’s work was stolen in the middle of the night. When the client attempted to return to his work area for his property, a friend of the Defendant chased him off with a tire iron. A lawsuit was filed for the return of this property. The client’s first lawyer had to withdraw because the woman practiced a type of guerilla legal warfare that would wear down all but the most perseverant. After this woman claimed brain cancer to attempt to have herself excused from several depositions, Richard Hamar’s investigation revealed that her treating doctor was her lover. Hamar found several witnesses in other parts of the world who had similar experiences with the Defendant. The case was settled for more than the value of the property on the third day of the jury trial because the client was having a difficult time with stress of trial and his failing health. Upon being excused, several jurors approached Richard Hamar and told him that if the matter went to verdict they would have given whatever punitive damage award was permitted by law.

    SUING A MEMBER OF THE PROFESSION (pending)

    When a manager and music publisher developed the career of a well known rap artist, he was crestfallen when an industry thug stole his client. After winning a judgment in excess of five million dollars, the money was transferred in another lawyer’s trust account. Unfortunately, this client was sentenced to prison before meeting Richard Hamar and could only trust the lawyer who maintained his money. When that lawyer did not return letters and account to the client, Richard Hamar was retained to file a lawsuit. That matter is now pending in Superior Court but thus far going exceptionally well and will be on the mothership blog.