Menu
Login
I hired Jeff Balgooyen for a court case. I paid him $500 on Sep. 26 to do work for a trial that was to be on Dec. 5. He was very nice and charming until he got my money.
Then he became abusive and belligerent, and one time he sounded like he was drunk. It took him almost a month just to give me his initial assessment of the case. He then kept making excuses for not having anything ready by the promised date. This happened 3 times. Then a few days before the trial he stopped taking my phone calls or responding to emails. And even though I told him I would call the police if he didn't either refund my money or have the papers ready by Dec. 4, I never heard from him and I called the police. This man is ###. He knew that I had suffered for years because of what two corrupt people did to me, and instead of helping me he ripped me off. This man is disgusting.
This Jeffrey J. Balgooyen is a total jack, he knows nothing. He is a total ripoff artist. Do not hire him, do not even email him, he will try to steal your money via Zelle or your Bank. He was caught with Cocaine in 1991 and suspended and then again in 2001 with Mamajuana. TOTAL LOZER OLD Drunken POS
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION
Case Nos. 91-182-GA; 91-197-FA; 91-277-GA;
92-5-GA; 92-69-FA; 92-14-JC; 92-230-GA; 92-263-GA
Jeffrey J. Balgooyen, P-30357, Ida, Michigan, by Attorney
Discipline Board Kent County Hearing Panel #3.
1) Suspension - thirty (30) months;
2) Effective September 13, 1991.
Case No. 91-182-GA
The panel found that the following were established by either
respondent's admissions or the evidence presented: eighteen counts
of neglect of appointed criminal appeals; one count of misrepresentation to the Michigan Appellate Appointed Counsel System; three
counts of neglect and failure to communicate with clients in civil
matters; two counts of failure to refund unearned fees; four counts
of failure to timely answer a request for investigation; and six
counts of failure to answer a request for investigation.
Case No. 91-197-FA
Formal Complaint 91-197-FA was dismissed.
Case No. 91-277-GA
The panel found that the following were established by
respondent's default: four counts of client neglect; four counts
of failure to refund unearned fees; and four counts of failure to
answer a request for investigation.
Case No. 92-5-GA
The panel found that the following were established by
respondent's default: one count of client neglect; one count of
failure to refund unearned fees; and one count of failure to answer
a request for investigation.
Case No. 92-69-FA
The panel found, by default, that respondent failed to answer
two formal complaints (91-277-GA and 92-5-GA).
Case No. 92-14-JC
Respondent pled guilty on September 13, 1991 in the 17th
Circuit Court to Attempted Possession with Intent to Deliver
Cocaine in violation of MCL 333.74012A4[A]. His license to
practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended on that date.
Case No. 92-230-GA
The panel found that the following were established by either
respondent's admissions or the evidence presented: two counts of
client neglect; one count of failure to refund unearned fees; one
count of failure to cooperate with the Attorney Grievance
Commission; and one count of failure to answer a request for
investigation.
Case No. 92-263-GA
The panel found that the following was established by a
preponderance of the evidence: one count of failure to notify a
client of his automatic suspension from the practice of law,
remaining as attorney of record while suspended, and failure to
keep his client informed of the status of his matter.
Respondent's conduct was found to be in violation of MCR
9.103(C); MCR 9.[protected]),(7)and(9); MCR 9.113(B)(2); MCR 9.119;
MCL 600.916; the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.1(c);
1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a); 1.15(b); 1.16(d); 3.2; 4.1; 5.5(a); 8.1(b);
and 8.4(a)-(c); and Canons 1, 6 and 7 of the then-applicable Code
of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(1),(5)and(6); DR 6-
101(A)(3); and DR 7-101(A)(1)-(3).
The panel ordered that respondent's license to practice law in
Michigan be suspended for thirty months retroactive to September
13, 1991, the date of his felony conviction, subject to additional
conditions as allowed by MCR 9.106(2). The panel further ordered
that respondent be subject to conditions for a period of two years
following his reinstatement to the practice of law.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $2280.15
.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION
Case Nos. 01-66-AI; 01-124-JC
Notice Issued: January 9, 2002
Jeffrey J. Balgooyen, P-30057, Ada, Michigan by the Attorney Discipline Board Kent
County Hearing Panel #4.
1. Revocation;
2. Effective August 7, 2001.
On August 7, 2001, respondent pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute
100 Kilograms or More of Marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. '' 846 and 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C). In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent=s license to practice law in
Michigan was automatically suspended on the date of his felony conviction. See Notice of
Automatic Interim Suspension, dated August 29, 2001.
The Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of the Judgment of Conviction on
August 30, 2001. The matter was assigned to a hearing panel and respondent was
ordered to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered. The hearing
panel ordered the revocation of respondent's license to practice law in the State of
Michigan effective August 7, 2001, the date of the felony conviction. Costs were assessed
in the amount of $246.98.
Do not hire this man! He resides in Arizona and I reside in CA I found his ad on craigslist. He is a disbarred attorney, who now acts as a paralegal. I hired him to file a motion to set aside charges. He ripped me off of $600.00. He never returned calls, he never picked up his cell, never responded to any my emails or text messages. one time, I left a message on his voicemail and he threatened to block my number. He is a crook. Do not hire him to do anything!
I paid him money to do a Motion. He never answers his phone, never returns calls, or email, I too got ripped off.
Do not believe a word that man says. He is a convicted drug trafficker and lost his license to practice law. He is a con artist who doesn't care who he harms.
September 10, 2015
[removed]
Re: request for retraction
notice of claim
your internet postings
[removed] hired me on or about September 26, 2014 for assistance in relation to an Order to Show Cause hearing for Contempt scheduled for December 5, 2014 in the Santa Clara Superior Court. She initially told a very sketchy story about a surgery done on her in 2001, for which litigation was still ongoing, and now they were threatening to put her in jail for contempt.
After she hired me, I looked at the court docket online, and requested documentation from her, some of which she sent to me.
[removed]
After the surgery, she became dissatisfied with what the doctor did, and she issued a series of threats to the surgeon that unless the doctor made a full refund to her of all the money paid to him, $12, 737.00, Swan would disparage the surgeon by telling the story and by making it widely available on the internet. The surgeon eventually gave in to her demands, and issued her a full refund, for which she signed a full release of claims on June 17, 2002 wherein among other things she promised to remove a disparaging internet post about the surgeon, and not make any more in the future.
She nevertheless in violation of that agreement afterwards repeatedly posted disparaging things about the doctor online, picketed his office with signs branding him a liar, mutilator, butcher, etc.
By that time the doctor had enough, and sued her in 2003. She sued him in response for medical malpractice. The case went to trial, and the doctor won a permanent injunction against Swan on March 22, 2005 prohibiting her from making internet postings about the doctor; the malpractice case was dismissed. The doctor voluntarily dismissed claims for fraud, defamation, and money damages against her, no doubt because he hoped she would just go away.
She did not, and she ignored the Court’s permanent injunction, posting at least 15 more disparaging reports about the doctor online.
The doctor applied to the Court to have her held in contempt.
Ms. Swan appears to suffer from some type of emotional condition or problems, and her solution to her contempt hearing was to want to subpoena telephone records between the judge and the doctor to prove they were “friends” and that her trial was somehow “fixed”. Over and above the practical and legal problem with such a request, the concerns about paranoia, it made no sense, as even if it were true that the doctor and judge had a social relationship, it would not have any bearing on whether Swan was in contempt of the Superior Court’s Order by continuing to post disparaging things about the doctor on the internet. I thought her plan would increase the chances of her going to jail.
The hearing had been adjourned several times, as I am sure nobody was very interested in seeing her go to jail, but nobody could seem to get through to her that she had to obey the Court. I told her by telephone that I would help her prepare a Response she could take to the hearing with her, but 4 days before the hearing, she left a profanity-laced tirade message on my voicemail, which I did not return, and the hearing was adjourned again, and has been adjourned twice thereafter.
She now has posted internet defamation about me, and I am not surprised. It is what she does. She called the police to get them involved, but I suspect they were able to see her modus operandi of doing things.
I have prepared a bill for my time which reflects she owes me money; however, it is hardly worth the time to send it to her.