12 October 2013

Attorney Misappropriated $3.5 Million From Elderly Doctor

Judge: Attorney misappropriated $3.5 million from elderly doctor

A State Bar Court hearing judge has recommended disbarment for a San Francisco Bay Area attorney found to have committed what was the single largest misappropriation in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel’s recent memory.
State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz found Wade Anthony Robertson culpable of four counts of misconduct for a phony investment scheme in which he misappropriated $3.5 million from an elderly man. The disbarment must be approved by the California Supreme Court before it goes into effect. Meanwhile, Armendariz ordered Robertson enrolled involuntarily inactive.
In her Sept. 4 decision, Judge Armendariz found Robertson [bar # 217899], 45, of Stanford, culpable of moral turpitude by engaging in a scheme to defraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation and of abusing the legal process. Armendariz also noted that Robertson has shown no remorse for his behavior, that he failed to admit any wrongdoing and that his misconduct occurred less than three years after he was admitted to practice law.


  1. One could conclude that that gleep Daniel Kristof Lak assisted the Fullers in fraud and misappropriation. Why aren't they being punished?

    By the way, the "law offices" of that gleep Daniel Kristof Lak at 18101 Von Karmen Ave. in Irvine is just a virtual office. There are dozens of businesses with tat same address. For a nominal monthly fee (as low as $95) he has mail delivered to a prestigious address and has an answering service. For an additional fee he can even rent a conference room in the event he wants to further deceive his customers and lead them to believe he is actually a professional attorney.


  2. If one is suspended I don't believe that it is constructive to have one's phone answered as if one is actually allowed to practice law.

  3. That lak fellow is as phony as they come.

  4. He probably didn't even bother to tell his answering service about his problems. As long as he keeps paying his $95/month they are happy to take messages. But who would call this gleep, especially with his background? That has to be why he has resorted to bellowing out tunes for tips at karaoke bars, all the while clinging to the hope that he can find more crooked customers like the Fullers.

    Then, again, maybe his mother is supporting him. What mother wouldn't want to support her 46 year old son?

    1. We called his office telephone number the first time that he was suspended [November 2012] for not paying his child/spousal support and were told at the time that he was in practice but, being naive thought nothing of it.

      Subsequently, with LAK’s mandated suspension by the bar coupled with his third suspension for not paying his child support/spousal support we found it extremely upsetting that when we called on 10 SEP 2013, that the woman on the other end of the phone represented that Daniel K. Lak was continuing to operate his practice as if he were in good standing with the Bar.

      All the Bar needed to do was to call his office after 10 September 2013 and before 30 September 2013, not identify themselves and ask his operator if he was taking on clients and LAK would have possibly been BUSTED!


All comments are reviewed before posting.