Read below and you will see why Ryan Golds has been on the top of the “Dumb Ass” awards list for several years running. In fact, it would seem Mr. Golds is the quintessential dumb ass.

The actions of Ryan Golds point out that he is truly a KMart Melvin Beli and a quality attorney wannabe that just can’t seem to make the grade.

Was Golds a party to fraud?

Within two-years of his being admitted to the California Bar, Golds hooked up with a disbarred attorney and felon who served time in California jails. The felon, David Greenstein, worked for Golds in the capacity of a paralegal but to many other attorneys, it seems Greenstein was practicing law under the license of Golds and over his signature. Golds knew Greenstein’s history when they started working together.

After a failed cardiac bypass and four angioplasties, Greenstein claimed he had a disability under the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act and, and, with Golds as his attorney, filed many claims against diverse businesses in California for their alleged “discrimination.” Usually, the cases were settled without a trial and sometimes without a lawsuit even being filed. Golds took his share of the settlements in “fees” for his services in connection with these cases. On some occasions he took food vouchers at the restaurant where he took friends for nights on the town. In all, Golds appears to have represented Greenstein in a dozen or so of these discrimination claims both in and out of court.

In one instance, two or three lawsuits were filed by Golds on behalf of Greenstein in Palm Springs, California, all within a couple of weeks. These cases were not settled, rather the attorneys opposing Golds fought, and claimed Golds was part of a scheme to defraud the restaurants and the public in general, and filed papers with the court to name him as a defendant in a lawsuit claiming he was an active participant in the fraud. When he was told this by the attorneys, he immediately put his tail between his legs and crawled out of the suits which were then dismissed.

Golds represented Greenstein and collected fees until about the end of 2003, when he and Greenstein parted ways saying he wanted a real attorney, and not a "wuss" who was afraid of his own shadow.

Complaints to the California State Bar

The State Bar of California polices attorneys and when one is accused of wrongdoing, it “investigates” and if appropriate, makes recommendations for discipline to the California Supreme Court. Good in theory, but remember the rattlesnake analogy. And in this venue, Golds appears as the poster child for an incompetent self-policing system.

There have been numerous complaints to the California State Bar about Golds, including at least two by Greenstein. In one complaint, Greenstein claimed Golds forged his name to a declaration under penalty of perjury in a case where Golds was representing him. Golds never established the falsity of this claim, and of course the Bar records are not public.

Another complaint to the Bar came from another attorney who accused Golds of filing a “frivolous” complaint. Golds denied this allegation, but in a rare show of justice, even though the State Bar did nothing, the judge in the case issued sanctions (a “ money fine” in lay terms) of $6,194.00 against Golds. Golds never paid any of this fine, even though ordered to do so by the court. So much for Golds respect for an order of the court.

Despite the fine being issued against Golds by the court, and this was reported to the State Bar, nothing was done and his license remained “clean.” In fact, Golds has bragged that it didn’t matter what complaints were made against him, by or with respect to his association with Greenstein, the Bar would do nothing. Does he have an inside line here?

It isn’t only disgruntled clients and defendant’s attorneys who filed complaints against Golds with the State Bar. Sometimes, admittedly very rarely, attorneys will file complaints with the Bar against other attorneys.Attorney M. Eileen McGarry, a well respected California attorney since 1989 filed a scathing complaint against Golds with the State Bar strongly alleging highly unethical conduct on the part of Golds in a lawsuit in which she was involved. To date, the State Bar will not make public its findings on this complaint.

Perjury in the first degree? 

In California, an attorney is an “Officer of the Court” and as such, is supposed to be held to very high ethical and moral standards.

In late 2006, an issue was brought to the attention of the California Supreme Court respecting Golds that alleged he committed perjury in one of his cases involving Greenstein. The Supreme Court was provided documentation from the Los Angeles Superior Court file, signed by Golds, to support the allegation of perjury. It is interesting that at this time, Golds was suing someone on behalf of the same clients who had the $6,194.00 judgment against him (Golds). And to confuse the matter more, his “Associate Counsel” in the case was M. Eileen McGarry, who had previously bitterly complained to the State Bar about him and accused him of fraud and unethical conduct. Did they kiss and make up?

In bringing the allegation of fraud directly to the California Supreme Court, the State Bar that Golds claimed would do nothing against him was bypassed. The Supreme Court reviewed the documentation submitted and directed the matter be referred to the State Bar for the Bar to fully, fairly and impartially review the perjury allegation. Apparently, the California Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to warrant an in-depth review of the conduct of Golds. That review is still pending, and the State Bar has said it may take “some time” to conclude due to the backlog of work it has. Is that anything like, “It died in committee?”

A fraud on the court

Quite often, to save judicial time, the courts will make rulings and orders and direct one of the attorneys to “give notice” of the ruling and/or orders to the other attorneys or parties. This means to send a written notice of what the court ordered. The court trusts the attorney ordered to give notice to do it correctly since he/she is an Officer of the Court.

In one case in which Golds was the attorney, the court made a very detailed order setting hearing dates and ordering the other party, who was not present at the hearing, to submit written opposition to the court by a certain date. Golds was present and ordered by the court to give notice of the courts ruling/orders to the non-present party.

Not only did the Notice of Ruling Golds mailed to the non-present party by Golds omit 90% of the critical information from the court’s order, but it said the court had made an order halting certain proceedings in the case. This was an ABSOLUTE LIE. by Golds. Checking the official “Clerk’s Minute Order” in the court file, which is never sent out to anyone, it was found the Judge never made such an order. Mr. Golds had lied in his Notice of Ruling to try to deceive the opposing party and gain a strategic advantage for himself in the case. If the other party had not distrusted Golds and obtained a copy of the Minute Order from the court file, he would have never known to submit required paperwork to protect himself, and Golds would have won. This conduct on the part of Golds has been brought to the attention of the Judge who made the order. Judges are not happy when attorneys play games and misquote them.

Golds competence comes into question.

In law school, attorneys learn civil procedure, and once they begin practice there are hundreds of books on the rules of court procedure, and now with the Internet, these Rules of Procedures are only a mouse click away. 

In California, one of the rules is that only in an “emergency” situation is an attorney to come to the court “Ex-parte” (with less than 24-hours notice to the opposition).

In one case in January 2007, Golds went to the court Ex-parte and the judge laughed at him pointing out the many errors Golds committed and throwing him out of court after saying “I could probably write a short essay on how many problems there are with (the papers Golds presented to the court).”

But probably the best part is when Golds came back to the same court at a later date, he admitted to the court with regard to a request he had made to it that he was wrong about some law he cited to the court. Not only that he was wrong, but that his error had been pointed out to him by his opposition several weeks prior to the court hearing. But did Golds withdraw his request? Of course not, he went on to waste the time of the court having that request reviewed. So much for candor with the court.

For the sake of brevity, many more misdeeds of Golds have been omited.

Bottom line:

Caveat Emptor with Ryan Golds, you may not get what you pay for.