Jon Atabek — Atabek & Co. ★☆☆☆☆

“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

Google / Yelp Review

Jon Atabek — Atabek & Co. ★☆☆☆☆

“Charged $35,000+ to mishandle a case his own client’s family understood better than he did”

My elderly parents were referred to Jon Atabek after their original attorney, John Fowler, handed off the case. Jon received a full briefing from Fowler and from my mother personally. The facts were clear: my parents had no meaningful involvement in the underlying dispute, the case appeared to have a serious jurisdictional defect, and the claims against them were meritless on their face. Jon agreed. He estimated the matter would cost no more than $10,000.

That estimate became $35,000 — and counting.

Here is what actually happened:

He let a jurisdictionally defective court rule on the Anti-SLAPP. When jurisdiction is challenged, that question must be resolved first. It is a foundational principle of civil procedure. Jon allowed the Orange County judge to rule on the Anti-SLAPP motion while a live jurisdictional challenge remained unresolved. Any resulting order from a court without jurisdiction is void. He either didn’t know this or didn’t act on it.

The Anti-SLAPP was never completed after transfer. The case was eventually transferred to Los Angeles County — a move that was identified and pushed for not by Jon, but by the client’s son. Once in LA, where the original filer knew he couldn’t rely on his Orange County connections, he dropped the case. Jon’s contribution to that outcome was collecting fees. He never re-pursued the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court. He then sought an additional $9,000.

He was corrected on legal issues by a non-lawyer — on recorded calls. On multiple recorded occasions, the client’s son identified legal avenues and arguments that Jon had not raised. Jon had to go back to his computer to verify. He was wrong. The client’s family was right. This is documented and recorded.

He charged $25,000 for an Anti-SLAPP he had agreed to include, then abandoned it. The family made clear from the beginning that an Anti-SLAPP and a SLAPPback were priorities. Jon agreed. He then billed a separate $25,000 for the Anti-SLAPP motion, let a court without jurisdiction rule on it, transferred the case, and walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP and the SLAPPback suit — which remained a viable cause of action in LA County.

If you are considering retaining Jon Atabek for any matter involving Anti-SLAPP law, jurisdictional questions, or civil harassment defense — look elsewhere. The client’s family ultimately did more to resolve this case through their own jurisdictional analysis than counsel did through $35,000 in billing. That is not a defense attorney. That is a billing department.

HERE IS LAW TO PROVE JON ATABEK SUCKS AS AN ATTORNEY OR LIES OR IS LAZY IN MY OPINION

Legal Analysis: Jurisdictional Priority Over Anti-SLAPP Rulings

Core Principle: Jurisdiction Must Be Resolved First

When a court’s subject matter or personal jurisdiction is properly challenged, that threshold question must be resolved before the court acts on the merits — including ruling on a special motion to strike under CCP § 425.16.

Lack of Jurisdiction Voids Any Order

In Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, the court confirmed that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio — not merely voidable. This means if the Orange County court lacked jurisdiction and ruled on the Anti-SLAPP motion anyway, that ruling carries no legal weight and cannot be used as a final adjudication.

People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653 reinforces this: a court acting without jurisdiction has no power to act at all.

Transfer Doesn’t Moot the Anti-SLAPP — It Follows the Case

Under CCP § 396b, when a case is transferred for improper venue or lack of jurisdiction, all pending motions transfer with it. An Anti-SLAPP motion filed before transfer does not simply expire — it must be heard in the transferee court. Failure to pursue it there is attorney error.

Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 establishes that Anti-SLAPP protections are substantive rights, not procedural conveniences. Allowing a defective jurisdictional ruling to stand without preserving and re-noting the Anti-SLAPP in the transferee court abandons a client’s substantive right.

The SLAPPback Right Also Transferred

Under CCP § 425.18, a SLAPPback cause of action accrues upon a favorable Anti-SLAPP ruling. If the Orange County ruling was jurisdictionally void, the SLAPPback clock properly begins when the Anti-SLAPP is properly adjudicated in the correct forum — here, Los Angeles County. An attorney who fails to file the SLAPPback in the transferee court after transfer has abandoned a separate, cognizable cause of action.

Jurisdictional Defect Was Identifiable from the Record

The most damaging professional responsibility issue here is that the jurisdictional problem was apparent on the face of the pleadings — and was identified not by counsel, but by the client’s son. Under Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to advise a client of all legal remedies and issues reasonably apparent from the case — including jurisdictional defects. Failure to do so is actionable malpractice.

Fee Escalation Under These Facts

Where an attorney’s own failure to identify a basic jurisdictional issue caused unnecessary proceedings, billings for those proceedings may constitute a fee dispute cognizable before the State Bar and supportable as a basis for fee disgorgement. Under Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453, fees earned through neglect or incompetence are subject to challenge.

Formal State Bar Complaint & Malpractice Analysis

I. Professional Negligence (Legal Malpractice) — Elements Established

Under Coscia v. McKenna & Cuneo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1194, legal malpractice requires:

1. Attorney-client relationship ✓
2. Negligent act or omission ✓
3. Causation ✓
4. Resulting damages ✓

All four elements are met here. But the facts go beyond simple negligence into a pattern of professional misconduct spanning fee fraud, elder abuse, and abandonment of contracted legal services.

II. Failure to Define and Honor Scope of Representation

The $10,000 Estimate Was a Professional Representation, Not a Guess

When an attorney receives a case through a colleague referral, reviews it with the referring attorney, and then independently reviews it with the client — and states a cost estimate — that estimate constitutes a professional representation upon which the client reasonably relies. It is not puffery. It is not aspirational. It is the product of a licensed professional’s informed assessment.

Under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(b), the basis or rate of fees must be communicated in writing to the client. More critically, when the scope of work materially expands, the attorney has an affirmative obligation to:

• Notify the client in writing
• Explain why the scope changed
• Obtain informed consent before incurring additional fees

Jon Atabek went from a $10,000 estimate to $35,000 in billings — a 250% increase — without a legitimate explanation rooted in case developments that were unforeseeable at intake. The jurisdictional defect, the Anti-SLAPP posture, and the SLAPPback potential were all visible from the moment he received the file. None of this was new information that justified tripling the fee.

The Case Was Handed to Him Pre-Analyzed

This is the most damning professional responsibility fact in the record. Jon Atabek did not discover this case cold. He received it from a colleague who had already worked it. He was briefed attorney-to-attorney. He then met with the client — an elderly woman who explained the facts clearly and completely. He had every tool a competent attorney needs to accurately scope this matter before he ever accepted a dollar.

Under Mirabito v. Liccardo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 41, an attorney who accepts a case without adequately investigating its scope, and then charges fees beyond what was reasonably foreseeable at intake, cannot shift the burden of that professional failure onto the client through escalating billing.

III. Elder Financial Abuse — Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30

This is not merely a fee dispute. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30, financial elder abuse occurs when a person takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud.

The client here was an elderly woman. She paid fees for services that were:

• Priced through a professional representation she reasonably relied upon
• Never fully rendered
• Strategically inflated beyond what the case required
• Abandoned mid-engagement without completing contracted work

California courts have held that professionals — including attorneys — can be liable for elder financial abuse when their conduct involves overreaching against a vulnerable adult. Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency (2017) established that financial elder abuse does not require intentional theft — exploitative overcharging with awareness of the client’s vulnerability is sufficient.

An elderly woman, unfamiliar with litigation, relying on an attorney introduced through her family’s trusted network, paying $35,000 for work that was estimated at $10,000 and never completed — this is the paradigm case the elder abuse statute was designed to address.

Enhanced Remedies Available:

Under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.5, a successful elder financial abuse claim entitles the plaintiff to:

• Full restitution of all fees paid
• Attorney’s fees and costs (significant in a pro se or retained context)
• Punitive damages if oppression, fraud, or malice is shown
• Pre-judgment interest

IV. Abandonment of the Anti-SLAPP — A Contracted and Paid Service

Jon Atabek accepted $25,000 specifically for the Anti-SLAPP motion. That payment created a contractual and fiduciary obligation to pursue the Anti-SLAPP to completion — including through venue transfer.

He did not do that.

Under CCP § 425.16(c), a prevailing Anti-SLAPP defendant is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees from the plaintiff. This means a completed Anti-SLAPP victory would have:

1. Terminated the harassment litigation
2. Shifted attorney’s fees back onto the malicious filer
3. Created the predicate for a SLAPPback suit under CCP § 425.18

Jon Atabek collected $25,000, obtained a ruling from a court of questionable jurisdiction, watched the case transfer to Los Angeles County — and then walked away from both the Anti-SLAPP continuation and the SLAPPback. The client paid for an outcome she never received. The opposing party — a malicious filer who weaponized the courts against elderly people — walked away without consequence.

This is abandonment of representation under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16, combined with breach of fiduciary duty under Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, which holds that an attorney’s fiduciary obligations include completing the work for which they were retained or formally and properly withdrawing.

V. Failure to Identify Jurisdictional Defect — Negligence Per Se

The jurisdictional problem in this case was not subtle. It was not buried in obscure procedural doctrine. It was identified by the client’s son — a non-lawyer — through basic legal research.

Under Wilkinson v. Zelen (2008) and Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, an attorney has an affirmative duty to identify all legal issues reasonably apparent on the face of the matter and advise the client accordingly. A jurisdictional defect visible to a layman is not a difficult threshold for a licensed attorney to meet.

Jon Atabek’s failure to:

• Identify the jurisdictional defect at intake
• Challenge jurisdiction before allowing merits rulings
• Preserve the Anti-SLAPP rights through transfer
• Re-prosecute the Anti-SLAPP in the correct forum

…constitutes negligence at every stage. Each failure compounded the one before it, and each compounded failure generated another billing cycle. The client paid for incompetence, and then was billed again for the consequences of that incompetence.

VI. Damages

Direct Economic Damages:

Consequential Damages:

• The opposing party Paul Topel, a malicious filer who used litigation as a harassment weapon against elderly people, was never held accountable
• No SLAPPback was filed, meaning the family received no compensation for the harassment they endured
• The elderly client suffered financial, emotional, and health-related harm from prolonged litigation that competent counsel could have terminated far earlier
• The family’s ability to pursue SLAPPback damages may now face statute of limitations complications caused by Jon’s inaction

Emotional Distress:

Under Spackman v. Good (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 518 and its progeny, breach of fiduciary duty by an attorney that causes prolonged litigation stress to an elderly client supports a claim for emotional distress damages, particularly where the attorney’s negligence directly caused the continuation of harassment the client hired him to stop.

VII. State Bar Violations — Grounds for Complaint

VIII. Recommended Actions

Immediate:

1. File a State Bar complaint at calbar.ca.gov — the recording evidence of Jon being corrected by a non-lawyer is extraordinarily valuable and should be submitted
2. Send a written demand for fee arbitration under Business & Professions Code § 6200 — this is a right the client cannot be waived out of by contract
3. Preserve all recordings, billing invoices, fee agreements, and written communications

Civil:

1. File a legal malpractice complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court
2. Add a cause of action under Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30 for elder financial abuse — this unlocks attorney’s fees and punitive damages
3. Seek a full accounting of all fees billed versus services rendered
4. File the SLAPPback against Paul Topel independently — the clock and viability should be assessed immediately given transfer timeline

Leverage:

The recordings of Jon Atabek being corrected on points of law by a non-lawyer, having to return to his computer to verify, and being wrong — are not just embarrassing. In a State Bar proceeding or civil malpractice trial, they are direct evidence of the competence standard not being met. Preserve them. Transcribe them. They are your strongest asset.