MARC RANDAZZA DEFENDS UNETHICAL CLIENT AND LOSES IN COURT, AGAIN

Source: ABC Money

“Corrupt” attorney Marc Randazza boasts on his website that he is a staunch defender of domain name law. However, in a case he recently lost for a client, Lotto Sport Italia, Randazza may have represented someone who acted in an unethical manner.

Attorney Marc Randazza lost defending the unethical side

Randazza bragged online: “We have successfully represented clients seeking to protect their domain name interests by stripping others of confusingly similar domain names registered in bad faith and retaining domain names that others have wrongly sought to take away. We are dedicated to seeing that the domain names belong to their rightful owner.”

However, this wasn’t the case, according to the court case. According to U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, David Dent, the plaintiff in question, felt that he was unfairly treated and that the defendant, Lotto Sport Italia, misrepresented the truth. The court documents state: “Plaintiff enumerates additional instances where he alleges Defendant’s positions in this case were inconsistent with facts in the record, which Plaintiff argues Defendant knew or could readily have discovered, including: Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff had placed advertising on at least one of the disputed domains.”

Dent won summary judgment in March, 2020. Randazza was no longer representing Lotto Sport Italia afterwards.

RANDAZZA FAILED TO GIVE HIS CLIENT THE RIGHT COUNSEL

In the case, Lotto Sport Italia seems to take a position that “Defendant urges that Plaintiff did in fact unlawfully register the two disputed domain names because he did so in bad faith.”

If Randazza had advised his client to do the ethical thing in a persuasive manner, Lotto Sport Italia might not have lost the $237,000 that the court forced them to pay in damages and legal fees.

Some of the false facts presented by Lotto Sport Italia were called out by Dent in court. They include, “Defendant’s attributing to Plaintiff information on the previous owner’s parking pages associated with <lottostore.com>; Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff had placed the disputed domain names for sale; Defendant’s failure to recognize that the disputed domains were locked and that Plaintiff never profited from the domains, which was relevant to an element of Defendant’s allegations of cybersquatting; and Defendant’s failure to recognize Plaintiff’s involvement with a large number of domain names associated with gambling-related endeavors. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was aware that its case lacked merit but proceeded anyway.”

RANDAZZA SUSPENDED BY PATENT OFFICE, FIVE STATE BAR COMPLAINTS

The State Bar of Nevada sued Randazza for violating Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct on nine counts. He broke the rules in regards to:

  • Communication,

  • Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,

  • Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,

  • Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,

  • Safekeeping Property,

  • Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,

  • Restrictions on Right to Practice,

  • Misconduct.

The State Bar of Nevada sued for the suspension of Randazza’s license in 2018 with violations of ethics. His license was suspended for a year. However, the State Bar did not put the suspension into effect.

Randazza actually pleaded guilty to two violations: a bribe and a shady loan. He appealed his suspension to the Nevada Supreme Court, but was rejected.

JUDGES DON’T SEEM TO BE SO IMPRESSED BY MARC RANDAZZA

Marc Randazza is probably one of the most corrupt attorneys in America. Randazza is so corrupt that Avvo, a legal online registry, issued the lowest rating possible of 1 out of 10 and marked Randazza’s profile with a warning “Extreme Caution”. One can easily assume that the reviews are fake and intended to only cover up the endless Bar complaints against Randazza in all states where he sells his legal work. If that is not enough, it seems that even the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE has suspended Marc Randanzza.

“Marc J. Randazza (“Respondent”) is hereby suspended from the practice of trademark and other non-patent law before the United States Patent and Trademark Office”.

RANDAZZA FAILS TO CARRY CASE ALL THE WAY

Once Lotto Sport Italia lost the summary judgment in 2020, Randazza no longer represented them in court. This happened again when Randazza represented neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin. Once Anglin fled to Europe, Randazza stopped representing him.

Can an attorney who has promised to represent his client’s interests in court do so if he only plans to abandon the client when everything gets difficult?

Randazza was so bad that even conspiracy theorist Alex Jones had to fire him. The InfoWars founder was told by a Connecticut judge that Randazza was “tainted.” The same judge accused Randazza of “serious misconduct.” In addition, Randazza lied while filing claims for Jones in the state of Connecticut, where he was not licensed to practice.

RANDAZZA MUST BE APPROACHED WITH ‘EXTREME CAUTION’

Marc Randazza is probably one of the most corrupt attorneys in America. Randazza is so corrupt that Avvo, a legal online registry, issued the lowest rating possible of 1 out of 10 and marked Randazza’s profile with a warning “Extreme Caution”. One can easily assume that the reviews are fake and intended to only cover up the endless Bar complaints against Randazza in all states where he sells his legal work. If that is not enough, it seems that even the UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE has suspended Marc Randanzza.

UNITED STATES Corrupt Attorney Marc Randazza suspended by the PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mr. Randazza was suspended for one year, stayed for eighteen months subject to conditions set by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, for knowingly violating duties owed to his client ( conflict of interest) and the legal profession (restrictions on the right to practice) arising out of a matter in which Mr. Randazza loaned money to his client without informing the client in writing of the desirability of obtaining independent counsel, and by negotiating with opposing counsel to receive, as part of a settlement, a retainer for future legal services.

See also: