We have many of the documents filed during a lawsuit David Mazor filed against Parex-LaHabra after he was discharged from the firm after they took over Mer-Kote Systems. There are tons of filings, many hundreds of pages long, one is 1700+ pages, the second amended complaint filed by Krubinski.
These filing provide a great insight into Dave’s activities and involvement with WICR, indeed, one highlight as seen below is that Krubinsk was and may still be been a partner of Fred Wanke’s since 1997 and received monthly consulting fees every month since 1997.
Another highlight is the inference that Irina Drill (now Irina Mazor) may have tampered with witnesses.
Despite David Krubinski David Mazor and his company ICR Services sued Parex, Dave didn’t seem to want to submit to a deposition and neither did Fred…wonder why? The defense attorney opined in one email or filing that it seemed that David had no intention of going to a trial, instead he sought to bully, threaten and delay everything in hopes of extracting a settlement.
Shockingly as well, Drill accuses the defense attorney of perhaps orchestrating a break in of WICR’s offices as well as David Mazor, in which the only things taken were documents belonging to Parex…
Head on over to our All of WICR’s Litigation page and I’ll be posting all the documents I have downloaded there for viewing and your reading pleasure.
My opinion is the WICR contract probably violates the Business & Professions laws enforced by CSLB and with such unconscionable clauses, probably violated the oath attorneys make to not write clauses that place a consumer in jeopardy or reduces their rights under state law or places them in a weaker position than the entity that wrote the contract.
My advice is DO NOT SIGN ANY CONTRACT FROM WICR!
If you have signed a contract, file a complaint with CSLB immediately. Protect your rights. Send them the contract, include payment information-did you give them more than $1,000 down when you signed the contract? That’s probably illegal if you did and CSLB will enforceable action against WICR. Does anyone at WICR make you feel intimidated or concerned? If they have, CSLB should know, and possibly your police department too! Log onto the CSLB website and download consumer rights bulletins, complaint forms etc. Be informed, be proactive.
You might also think about filling a complaint with the state bar if Lindborg and Drill wrote or reviewed the wicr contract. Any good attorney would adviser client to not include unconsinouble clauses.
It appears there is a pattern emerging here where WICR has been accused of doing poor work, they use their attorney and “expertise” in claiming something other than their fault has caused the problems and attempts to deflect liability. If that sounds like your case, please contact us here, we want to hear your story and publish it.
Highlights of WICR’s dirty clauses
Required clauses in contracts such as informing contractors of their rights must be in every contract. However, WICR sneaks in deception where they say “If you file a complaint against a licensed contractor within the legal deadline (usually 4 years)…”
Well no, the consumer has up to 10 years if it is a latent (hidden damage or faulty work that can’t be be seen by a layperson) and four years of it is visible and obvious to even a layperson.
WICR’s contract attempts to make the owner responsible for obtaining building permits. CSLB doesn’t allow that, the contractor is responsible for obtaining a permit. They may however charge you their costs to obtain the permit and the cost of the permit.
Indemnification & Defense
If there is only one reason not to sign the WICR contract, this is it. You would, if this is even enforceable, be liable to defend WICR for all sorts of things beyond your control, even after the job is done and you’ve paid them in full!
Limitations & Liability
Here WICR inserts language that gives you 6 months to make a claim after the work is done and seeks to take away your right to sue by requiring arbitration.
WICR in Pursuit of a $1.3 Million Judgement for Damages
Bankruptcy Filing by Keck Prevented Collection
Years of Appeals Later, Court Affirms Keck’s Debt is Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
WICR just won’t give up hope of collecting a judgement from an ex-employee of theirs. Scott Keck and WICR have been battling for years with Keck’s lawyers getting the best of WICR’s attorneys time after time.
On March 5th the Court issued a ruling regarding the dischargeablity of the judgement in bankruptcy, affirming the bankruptcy courts finding that the debt is dischargeable. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20200309737 This link takes you to a copy of the decision on another website.
From the court document, the court found all sorts of failures on WICR’s attorneys Lindborg & Mazor’s part. (Irina Mazor of the firm is married to David Mazor, owner of WICR)
“WICR challenges two decisions by the bankruptcy court: (1) the dismissal of Arwen Keck from the nondischargeability action; and (2) the Order discharging Scott Keck’s debt. As explained below, the Court vacates the bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss Arwen Keck and remands for further proceedings, and affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to discharge Scott Keck’s debt.”
“Accordingly, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that WICR failed to prove willfulness under § 523(a)(6).”
“The Court therefore also affirms the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusion that WICR did not prove that Scott Keck acted with malice.”
“In sum, the bankruptcy court correctly found that WICR failed to show that Scott Keck subjectively or objectively believed he was harming WICR for purposes of willfulness, intended to harm WICR for purposes of malice, or caused WICR actual lost profits by his actions. Thus, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Scott Keck’s debt was dischargeable because WICR failed to carry its burden to prove willfulness and malice under § 523(a)(6).”
This case will continue on going after Arlen Keck, because Dave is, I’m sure bent on revenge and hounding his opponent using low cost legal services…but then again, especially when it comes to lawyers, you get what you pay for…
Is Lindborg & Mazor paying for “awards” to make themselves look good to clients?
It sure looks like it…a look at their website at https://www.lmllp.com/ has a list of “awards” that they have bought…err, received, after paying money apparently.
When a client looks at Lindborg & Drills web page, how the fuck are they to know that Lindborg & Drill paid for these awards? Answer, they don’t. Or rather, they didn’t know then but they know now. What kind of tiny ego’s must one have to buy oneself awards that are meaningless, except to perhaps defraud potential clients?
Is it legal? Apparently it is yes. But, for shits & giggles, and because it may be false advertising, I submitted an online complaint to the state bar association. Happy New Years to Lindborg & Mazor! (The countdown begins to see if they remove their scammy awards from their website, starting now at 11:45 am on 12/31/19)
Is it ethical? Depends on your ethics. For myself, I wouldn’t even consider it. Ask yourself, Do I want to deal with a firm that buys itself awards to try to impress clients?
From Wikipedia –
In August 2018, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against AI Global Media to the effect that in two marketing emails they had implied an award had been given after a “meticulous and extensive” selection process involving significant voting by third parties, when in fact it appeared nominees were selected indiscriminately in bulk, large numbers of nominees could win awards not least because the categories for the awards were selected with a view to making as many awards as possible, and there were not a significant number of third-party votes. They also found that the first of these emails had misleadingly represented itself as being a legitimate email about an awards process not a marketing communication; they also noted that “Build”, the Al magazine in question, “did very little to promote the award winners who had not purchased the advertising packages”.
A search on Google quickly turned up many sites calling these awards scams, fake, etc.
The link below lists every awards company and whether it’s pure scam or real.
“Last week, up-and-coming firm FLF Abiola & Co. captured the highly coveted title of “Film Financing Law Firm of the Year in Nigeria” from both Finance Monthly and Corporate INTL, which claim a combined readership of nearly 300,000 per month. Netting this rare international two-for should’ve been a major coup for the (very) young African firm, yet the win was greeted with howls of laughter by the notoriously salty UK press. The venerable Guardian was even moved to note that Abiola’s “logo bears more than a passing resemblance to an ejaculating penis.” It’d be understandable if Abiola felt that the tenor of the coverage verged on bullying, even given such a graphic design gaffe, but the only ones crying foul are the awards’ presenters. You see, FLF Abiola & Co., is not strictly speaking a real law firm, or even a particularly credibly faked one.
The firm was the invention of satirical law blog RollOnFriday, designed to lampoon purveyors of cash-for-credibility legal awards like Universal Media (the publisher of both Finance Monthly and Corporate INTL). After ROF revealed their ruse, a Corporate INTL spokesperson “concede[d] that there has been a breakdown in the due diligence/judging phase of our awards programme,” but that seems like a slight understatement. While the logo alone might not have been enough to erect a warning sign, there were other red flags. The photo purported to be of firm founder Dennis Abiola was, in fact, American actor Danny Glover. The Nigerian address provided did not exist. Even the FLF in FLF Abiola & Co. stands for Fake Law Firm. A cursory internet search would’ve been enough to cast doubt on the existence of the practice, but that might’ve obstructed the work of sending pre-drafted emails asking nominees and winners for £300 to fund an attractive sponsorship and promotional package.”
Hey, even dogs are getting in on the action, one dog became a member of “Lawyers of Distinction-read it below
Bottom line is, if you as an attorney feel compelled to buy yourself awards, perhaps you should take a long hard look in the mirror and see why lawyers are regarded as scum. I’m left with the thought though that Irina won’t see a reflection in a mirror, like the rest of the vampires that exist in the law profession.
Update, an email sent to wicr resulted in the photographs removal from their blog.
I was browsing WICR Inc’s website/blog today and came upon a blog post about plywood vs OSB substrate. “Written” by Chris Swanson, he discusses why OSB isn’t a suitable substrate and why plywood is…well and good.
However, as I scrolled through to the end, I noticed a photograph that was very familiar to me since I took it on January 18th of 2008.
Jeez, you’d think a company that’s been around as long as they have might have a few pictures of their own…but apparently not and stealing pics without giving attribution is low, but that’s what WICR is about, being snakes in the grass. The head snake is David Mazor aka David Krubinski, second snake in command is Sean Krubinski, the “protege/progeny” of Mazor. Tool in Chief is Fred Wanke, who does what he’s told and shuts the fuck up when he’s told too. Fred is trotted out as the figurehead of WICR when necessary.
Well, looked at another way, WICR must secretly admire our work, stealing is a form of flattery after all.
WICR Hates This-TRUTH IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE AGAINST LIABILITY FOR DEFAMATION, REGARDLESS OF BAD FAITH OR MALICIOUS PURPOSE from Krubinski vs Schmutzer lawsuit