Bay Area Divorce Lawyer Brad Baugh Facing Fraud on the Court, Fee Churning Allegations

New Santa Clara County Superior Court: Judge-Attorney Collusion Alleged

Attorney Brad Baugh Whistleblower Leak: Olivier Garbe Winnov Founder Divorce Case Past Due Attorney Fee Invoice

San Jose divorce attorney Brad Baugh.

The past due attorney fee invoice embedded at the bottom of this post is from the high-conflict Silicon Valley divorce case between Winnov Inc Founder Olivier Garbe and Diana Dong. The case is being heard by controversial Santa Clara County Family Court Judge Mary Ann Grilli.   

San Jose divorce attorney Brad Baugh represents Garbe in the trial court, and prominent appellate attorney Garrett C. Dailey represents Garbe on appeal. Dong has been represented by a string of attorneys or been self-represented due to denials of motions requesting attorney fee funds.  

Baugh is connected to a number of high-profile, high-conflict Santa Clara County divorce cases, including Richard and Laura Beauchesne, Janet and Kyle Bowers, Susan and Robert Bassi, and Evan and Violet Brooks. 

Court watchdogs allege that court records show Baugh deliberately generates conflict between divorcing couples who have substantial assets and income, unnecessarily drags cases out for years, and in the process churns exorbitant legal fees.  Whistleblowers also assert that Baugh fails to disclose conflicts of interest with Santa Clara County Superior Court judges, referees, special masters, judge pro tems, and child custody evaluators, who Baugh has had personal, social, or professional relationships with for more than 20 years. 

Court case file statistical sampling and anecdotal evidence suggest that Baugh obtains favorable outcomes for his clients at a statistically improbable level. Whistleblowers attribute the attorneys unusual success to alleged unethical conduct, serial moral turpitude misconduct, bad faith litigation tactics, and corruption within his network of judges and associates. 

Whistleblower Leak: Winnov CEO Olivier Garbe Past Due Invoice from Attorney Garrett Dailey of Elkins v. Superior Court

• Case: Marriage of Dong & Garbe 608-FL-000101
• Judge: Mary Ann Grilli Santa Clara County Superior Court

Santa Clara County Judge Mary Ann Grilli Controversy: Socioeconomic, Pro Per Bias Alleged by Family Court Whistleblowers

Santa Clara County Superior Court whistleblowers allege that many wealthy judges convey explicit socioeconomic and pro per bias against indigent, disabled and financially disadvantaged litigants. 

A Santa Clara County government whistleblower has leaked the Statement of Economic Interests financial disclosure data for controversial family law Judge Mary Ann Grilli. The records reveal that Grilli enjoys a net worth substantially above seven figures. The 30-page document, embedded at the end of this article, shows a well diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, as well as an IRA and a revocable trust. 

Indigent, disabled and financially disadvantaged "pro per" litigants who can't afford counsel report that Grilli routinely exhibits socioeconomic and pro per bias, and favoritism towards lawyers. Court dockets and records from cases reviewed by the Family Court Accountability Coalition indicate that Grilli also often disregards "level-playing field" laws that mandate both parties in a divorce be represented by counsel where community property and assets are sufficient.

Whistleblower Leak: Appeal Attorney Garrett Dailey Employment Agreement with Winnov Inc Founder Olivier Garbe - $650 Per Hour

Employment agreement for prominent appeal attorney Garrett Dailey, of Elkins v. Superior Court. Dailey bills at $650 per hour, according to this agreement with Olivier Garbe. Garbe is the founder of Winnov Inc., in Silicon Valley. 

The agreement is for representation in an appeal in a contentious divorce case, Marriage of Dong & Garbe, case number 608-FL-000101, Santa Clara County Superior Court. Controversial Judge Mary Ann Grilli is the trial court judge, and attorney Bradford Baugh represents Garbe in the trial court.