Lisa Bloom Accused Of Preventing Special Needs Students From Receiving Settlement Funds

1368px-Belisaire_demandant_l'aumone_Jacques-Louis_DavidLisa Bloom has struggled for the last few years with what was a carefully maintained media image. There was the dust up with her former client Kathy Griffin. She then broke from her client Harvey Weinstein in a public reversal. Then there was her public statement that she believed that Joe Biden was a rapist who continues to lie about his crime but that she would still support him. Now she is in the middle of litigation where she is accused of preventing families of four special needs children from getting settlement funds because she wanted a cut. They insist that she abandoned them and never had a fee agreement.

Bloom’s firm put liens on the four lawsuits of special needs students who sued different school districts in California alleging that the children were physically or sexually abused at school.  The families are denouncing Bloom for first abandoning them and then demanding a cut of their settlement.

The families have been represented throughout their cases by Oakland-based Lawyer Micha Star Liberty.  Liberty originally brought in Bloom’s firm to assist in the case but notably, Bloom never got a written fee agreement with the families. The families said Bloom left them high and dry in the middle of the litigation.

There does not appear to be a dispute over the lack of a written fee agreement. That raises a serious question under the rule governing California bar members:

Rule 1.5.1 Fee Divisions Among Lawyers (Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018) (a)

Lawyers who are not in the same law firm* shall not divide a fee for legal services unless:

(1) the lawyers enter into a written* agreement to divide the fee;

(2) the client has consented in writing,* either at the time the lawyers enter into the agreement to divide the fee or as soon thereafter as reasonably* practicable, after a full written* disclosure to the client of:

(i) the fact that a division of fees will be made;

(ii) the identity of the lawyers or law firms* that are parties to the division; and

(iii) the terms of the division; and

(3) the total fee charged by all lawyers is not increased solely by reason of the agreement to divide fees. (b) This rule does not apply to a division of fees pursuant to court order.

Comment The writing* requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) may be satisfied by one or more writings.*

In fairness to Bloom, if she had an agreement for payment, the only effective way to force payment is to place a lien on the settlement distribution. Otherwise, you have to sue each family.  Moreover, if Liberty enlisted the assistance of Bloom, there must have been some understanding of compensation.  That would still leave the allegation of abandonment. 

Of course, preventing special needs students and alleged abuse victims from recovering settlement funds is challenging in any case. However, to do it without meeting this requirement would seem a disaster in the making.

44 thoughts on “Lisa Bloom Accused Of Preventing Special Needs Students From Receiving Settlement Funds”

  1. Well, I have decided this mendacious little flower deserves an Irish Poem! I hope she has to change her name after this!

    Les Fleurs du Malpractice???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a lawyer named Bloom,
    Who sucked all the air from the room!
    She did something mean
    By filing a lien,
    And we hope her career goes CUR-BLOOM!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. I’m no Lisa Bloom et matrem fan but this sounds like a garden variety fee dispute to me. Bloom did some work it appears as entitled to reasonable compensation.

    1. mespo – has she every completed a case? Lisa Bloom seems to be in it for the hype. In this case, I think they thought she would have expertise in the sex abuse angle, however, if she abandoned them then it is on her to prove she did valuable work to the settlement.

    2. I think I read somewhere, once, that quantum meruit might not apply when an attorney has not gotten a signed contract with the client, and here, other counsel. I am too lazy to look up the applicable California law.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  3. Lawyers who court the mass media play games with fire. The mass media does not serve truth; though it may be a factor. It does not even serve corporate profits for the organization, though it may be a factor. Most of all the corporate mass media serves the dictates of its ownership, because, quite simply, the boss is the boss, and he can make us say whatever he likes.

    Lawyers that place bets on a creepy racket like that, are gamblers. Bloom, is a gambler. Live by publicity, die by it too.

  4. Unwritten contracts, or documents without signatures on agreements of conditions and responsibilities, have been upheld by the courts on the basis of performance only. Bloom performed but is without some signed documents; that doesn’t mean she is not due compensation.

    That compensation to successful litigants in the form of cheques require both the litigant’s and the lawyer’s signature is typical. The lawyer is protected by the system regarding compensation.

    All the rest of this mumbo jumbo is for a court to sort out. Bloom may be an unquestionable scumbag but she is a lawyer and judges are or were lawyers, and the structure guarantees that she be paid. It’s the age old conundrum, if your lawyer screws you, you have to get another lawyer. Typically the issue is settled for the lesser of the costs, that of the original lawyer’s fee or the new lawyer’s fee which comes with the chance that you’ll lose.

    1. Can someone explain to me the relevance of the special needs students in this story? If the clients have been pharmaceutical companies, would there still be a story here?

        1. If the idiot Angela Correy had charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and the entire business focused on Zimmerman looking for trouble while armed, he would have been, more than likely, convicted and in jail, where he belongs. Zimmerman provoked the situation. Martin fought back and was on top. Manslaughter rests on being able to avoid a situation. The murder charge was stupid. If ‘ifs and ands were pots and pans, the world would need no tinkers’-St. Joan-Bernard Shaw.

          1. Isaac: wrong. Or, provide authority for your assertion that “manslaughter” whatever.

            1. Paul– I didn’t know Zimmerman was suing the Martin family. Good. I hope he gets something out of this.

              1. Young – I did not know that either, however they got a big payoff from the HOA, without waiting for trial (I am sure their insurance carrier carried the ball on that) and they have been running their mouth since.

                1. Paul– Now that you mention it I do recall the HOA payout and I was disgusted with it at the time. And yes, they have been running their mouths off and collecting money ever since. I hope he gets something from this. I think the court erred in dismissing his media lawsuit.

                  I am betting he no longer loves Obama.

                  He would be wise not to speak out on BLM, but I would be amused if he did.

                2. Bringing back memories. I wonder if the HOA insurer who settled before the trial decided they had one stupid adjuster too many.

          2. Issac– You seem not to have followed the evidence or if you did you failed to understand it in the Zimmerman trial. Put simply, the state had no case. Zimmerman was innocent. Martin was the aggressor who attacked Zimmerman who was waiting for the police he had called to arrive.

            1. Martin was the aggressor who attacked Zimmerman who was waiting for the police he had called to arrive.

              Martin was walking home. Zimmerman was in his vehicle. Martin did not seek out Zimmerman.

              Zimmerman was a known nuisance. He had dogged Martin for long enough for Martin to notice. Zimmerman left his vehicle, armed with a 45 and proceeded to look for Martin. Martin jumped him. It was a fist fight. Zimmerman took a 45 to a fistfight he could have easily avoided. Zimmerman instigated the situation. Only the perverse interpretation of law allowed Zimmerman to plead self defense. It was only Zimmerman’s word that he feared for his life. The life lost was Martin’s. Zimmerman was charged with murder, not manslaughter. The jury was told after the trial and before the verdict that they could consider manslaughter. The entire trial/affair was based on a murder charge where Zimmerman claimed self defense. Correy was grandstanding and blew it. If she had charged Zimmerman with manslaughter then the trial/affair would have been about Zimmerman creating the situation where he ‘felt’ it was necessary to shoot Martin. The difference was between creating the deadly situation and self defense. If charged with manslaughter, Zimmerman would be in jail. Instead they gave this idiot back his gun. Sometimes the legal system just doesn’t work.

              1. issac – you got it right when you said Martin jumped Zimmerman. He did not have to do that. He was also pounding Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk when Zimmerman drew his legal carried gun and fired to save his life. He was charge with manslaughter as a less included, as well as murder. He was acquitted of both charges.

                In fact, for many observers, the manslaughter charge was the sticky one that people thought the jury might decide on just to scapegoat Zimmerman. The murder charge was over charging, however it was iffy on the manslaughter and a lot of us were holding our breath for that verdict. Not guilty let us breathe again.

                1. Martin’s girlfriend, testifying for the competition, won the acquittal for Zimmerman by repearting Martin’s spoken intention to assault that “creepy, white, kill-my-neighbors cracker,” making Martin’s subsequent assault on Zimmerman unwarranted under any circumstances, a purposeful assault initiated by Martin with malice and motivated by racial hatred, during which Zimmerman didn’t even have to invoke the “stand your ground” law. He was physically prevented from leaving the scene of the assault by Martin.

                  During the course of Martin’s assault, he didn’t stop at disabling Zimmerman, but pressed the assault to an extent that another prosecution witness who’d cared for Zimmerman’s wounds testified had Zimmerman not stopped Martin’s assault, he’d have suffered grievous injury likely to resutl in death. Finally, Martin’s utterances to his girlfriend were racial abuse directed at Zimmerman which would, had Martin ben tried might have added hate crime enhancements against Martin.

                  The prosecutor seems to have done his duty to uncover the salient facts of the case. Fortunately for Zimmerman, the prosecutor seemed to have disregarded the classic advice to all attorneys not to ask questions to which you don’t know the answer. Or perhaps he remembered his primary duty as an officer of the court was to present exculpatory evidence which came to his attention.

              2. Issac– I was right on both points. You don”t know most of the facts and those you do know you do not understand. Probably much of the trial is still available on YouTube. Watch it. Learn something. Then form an opinion. You seem to have gotten info from NBC and the like who were caught in outright deception. In your case the deception worked.

                And, as Paul told you, the jury had the opportunity to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter and they did not.

              3. “It was only Zimmerman’s word that he feared for his life.”

                In fact a homeowner witnessed Martin astride Zimmerman and raining martial arts type blows to his head.

                A prosecution witness who treated Zimmerman’s head wounds testified that if he hadn’t stopped what was causing those wounds he could have died.

              4. Martin did not seek out Zimmerman.

                Martin, stationed outside the back door of Brandi Green’s townhouse and in lieu of simply going indoors, walked 75 yards down an alley and attacked Zimmerman, who had no idea where Martin was and was loitering around waiting for the police to arrive.

                You are absolutely pig-ignorant about everything, but you insist on spewing verbiage about it.

                1. Absurd– Too true. He is an ignoramus with a strong opinion. A lot of those hanging around these days.

                  1. No, I think Isaac and other Liberals are mentally ill. They NEED racism the way George Floyd needed Fentanyl and Meth. They are addicted to racism, and like addicts, they live in a constant state of denial and self-delusion. There is no place so low that they will not go there to get them some stuff. Sooo, even though Martin attacked Zimmerman, and went out of his way to do it, Zimmerman MUST be to blame! That is the only way for them to get themselves a fix.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                2. Zimmerman dogged Martin=fact. Zimmerman left his vehicle to further dog Marin=fact. Zimmerman was armed=fact. None of this would have happened if Zimmerman had simply stayed in the car and waited for the police=fact. Back in the day when the perverse interpretation of the second amendment had not gone this far, Zimmerman would not have been armed and would not have killed Martin, if he had stayed in the car. It is highly unlikely that without his 45 Zimmerman would not have put himself within reach of Martin’s fists. Perhaps Zimmerman caused Martin to feel he had to defend himself. Martin did not dog Zimmerman. Zimmerman created the situation. The trial was all about murder until the judge told the jury after the closing statements they could consider manslaughter. The trial was not about manslaughter. If the trial had focused on Zimmerman’s dogging of Martin and all the other arguments, being a nuisance in the neighborhood watch club-90+ calls into the police in several months, etc. there is a better than good chance that Zimmerman would have been convicted of manslaughter and be in jail where he belongs.

                  1. issac – Zimmerman did not “dog” Martin, in fact Martin dogged Zimmerman – fact!!! Martin attacked Zimmerman-fact!!! Martin was beating Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk-fact. Zimmerman was in fear for his life-fate.You have the “facts” of this case screwed up-fact!!!!!!!!!!

                    1. Schulte

                      Zimmerman was in his car ‘patrolling’ the neighborhood. Zimmerman was an established nuisance, known to the police to call in just about everything, open garage door for example. Zimmerman was in his car and ‘dogged’ Martin. When he lost sight of Martin, he left his car to go look for him, packing a 45. Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, as advised by the dispatcher, and waiting for the police. Zimmerman was advised/instructed by the dispatcher to wait for the police. Zimmerman had a history of being a wannabe cop. He never should have been licensed to carry a gun in the first place. Zimmerman the cowardly wannabe cop without a gun would have never left the car. Martin would still be alive. Manslaughter.

                    2. issac – Not guilty according to a jury of his peers. And, btw, that is what Neighborhood Watch people do, exactly what Zimmerman was doing. Do they allow you to have neighborhood watches where you live? If they do, start one, you will meet your neighbors, make friends, etc.

                    3. Zimmerman was in his car ‘patrolling’ the neighborhood.

                      No, he was arriving home in his truck and noticed Martin coming out from behind the house of one Frank Taafe. He knew Taafe and knew Martin had no business being there.

              5. whenever there is a gun involved in a wrestling match, it’s automatically a life and death struggle. the guy with the gun who is pinned down and being harmed can’t assume that the guy will stop beating him at some point. if he gets knocked out, he could lose his gun and possibly his life.

                it’s the same scenario for cops – if you attack a cop. because they always have a gun, they can never risk someone taking it and using it against them. so they need to respond with overwhelming and often deadly force.

      1. Not sure, but there are two possibilities – that the studens’ special needs status left them unusually vulnerable to sexual abuse on the part of tthe school staff involved and/or that an additional supervisory duty of school administrators to choose tand supervise such staff with added diligence reasonably existed.

    2. “Bloom performed but is without some signed documents; that doesn’t mean she is not due compensation.”


      That may be right. The ethical ‘statute of frauds’ cited touches on ethics and it could be argued that it does not impair an otherwise valid parol contract. Bloom could be entitled to her money and also be in trouble with the bar. Moreover, as is usually the case this statute of frauds only requires a writing, not a carefully drafted contract. Hard to believe that it got this far without an exchange of documents and memoranda. Also a client will not claim abandonment unless the client understands that in some way the lawyer is engaged. A mess.

      1. There is plenty of precedent for ‘performance’ only to justify compensation, without the need of a signed contract. Also, any iron clad contract is broken due to negligence and/or fraud on the part of any party. If Bloom can be found to have been negligence and/or fraudulent, then she loses. Again, the age old conundrum, the legal system is such that a lawyer would more than likely necessary to prove negligence and/or fraud on Bloom’s part. Settle out of court.

        1. Isaac did not go to law school. Not that a lay-person can’t have a well informed opinion about law; but that is not one of them. There is so much wrong with it, I won’t bother to unpack it.

          But Isaac claims all Trump supporters are simpletons. Well, this simpleton is enjoying Isaac putting his ignorant overconfidence on display.

          1. I have successfully sued for payment based on proof of performance but without a signed memorandum of agreement or contract. I have also, after proving negligence, relieved myself of contractual obligations. All these occasions took place without a lawyer. If the situation is simple, one doesn’t need a lawyer.

            Not all Republicans are simpletons. Some Democrats are simpletons. However, Trump supporters, support a blithering idiot, a poltroon, a liar extraordinaire, a megalomaniac, and narcissist. Call them what you may. I call them simpletons.

    3. JT stated the pertinent his column:

      Bloom never got a written fee agreement with the families. The families said Bloom left them high and dry in the middle of the litigation.

      The rest of the issue seems to fall under “Rule 1.5.1 Fee Divisions Among Lawyers (Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018) ” as quoted by JT in his column – and Bloom’s only recourse is that quantium meruit claim Squeaky found a reference to – If the statutory limit of two years has not yet elapsed.

      It’ll all come out in the wash. If Bloom has a leg to stand on, those parents’ original attoney will probably advise them to settle with Bloom. We’ll see.

Comments are closed.