Grunow Linda M

★☆☆☆☆

About Grunow Linda M

Hours
Mon. - Fri. 9am - 5pm;Sat. - Sun. CLOSED
Reservations
Make A Reservation

Attorneys & Legal Services

Attorneys & Legal Services
More choices in Encinitas:
Resultset_next

Zev Rubinstein Law Office

100 E San Marcos Blvd # 400 San Marcos, CA

Resultset_next

County Law Ctr

5963 La Place Ct # 312 Carlsbad, CA

1.0 1
Hi! Sign in to let us know how Grunow Linda M was?
Write a Review
.

If this attorney is representing you or representing the party opposing you...DO NOT TRUST HER!!
Here are just three examples out of numerous cases involving Linda Grunow that would suggest nothing less than fraud and conspiring to commit fraud.
1. Linda Grunow was retained to represent a woman who was named trustee of her aunt??s trust. Grunow convinced her client, who was living out of state at the time that it would be in her best interest to allow the court to appoint a private fiduciary to assume the role of trustee. The client took the advice of her attorney. When the client learned that a woman named Teresa Castiglione was petitioning the court for the appointment, the client asked Linda Grunow whether she knew anything about her. Grunow replied to her client's question by stating, "No, that she really didn't know too much about her, only that she believes that Castiglione was pretty honest" The client didn't oppose Castiglione's petition based on what her attorney, Grunow stated that she believed.
HERE'S THE TWIST: During the same time that the client asked Grunow about Castiglione and Grunow said she really didn't know too much about her, Grunow was Castiglione's attorney and was then currently representing her in another probate matter. Within 5-6 month's Grunow's client's aunt's trust was practically cleaned out due to the over excessive trustee and attorney fees charged by Grunow and Castiglione.

2. In a conservatorship matter, Linda Grunow was representing the conservator Teresa Castiglione. However, before Castiglione's appointment as conservator, there was the nomination of Julie Lubitz for the appointment first, (Search Insiderpages for Julie Lubitz). Castiglione and Lubitz, both, are legal clients of Linda Grunow. The nomination of Lubitz and Castiglione both came from attorney Boris Siegel of Law Office of Siegel & Wolensky (Search Insiderpages for Boris Siegel). Boris Siegel also had an attorney-client relationship with Lubitz and Castiglione. Boris Siegel's got involved in the conservatorship by pushing his way in and replacing the court appointed attorney for the representation of the conservatee. Now in any honest conservatorship, the conservatee's attorney, Siegel, the conservatee's conservator, Castiglione, and the attorney for conservatee's conservator, Grunow, all have the duty to act in the best interest of the conservatee so when Lubitz had an undisclosed trust instrument created for the unknowing conservatee and named herself the trustee of it, you would think that Siegel, Castiglione, or Grunow, if they knew about the trust, would bring it to the courts attention. Wrong, they did all know about the undisclosed trust and none of them brought it to the courts attention and it stayed that way for a year and a half until one of the conservatee's family member??s discovery that funds from the conservatorship estate were being funneled into it. Between the 4 of them, the conservatorship estate was billed approximately $700,000. over the total amount of the estate size so they all went after the conservatee's family members to pay the balance and the fees they were continuing to generate thereafter. Eighty-five percent of the amount billed to the conservatorship estate went to their fees and misappropriations. None of it went to the care of the conservatee.
3. Linda Grunow was Notary Public for a Power of Attorney document that Teresa Castiglione had prepared for one of Castiglione??s clients. Castiglione did not bring the client with her for the signature verification and the document that Grunow was Notarizing gave her interest in it. The Power of Attorney named Grunow as successor of the POA.

1
★☆☆☆☆

If this attorney is representing you or representing the party opposing you...DO NOT TRUST HER!!
Here are just three examples out of numerous cases involving Linda Grunow that would suggest nothing less than fraud and conspiring to commit fraud.
1. Linda Grunow was retained to represent a woman who was named trustee of her aunt??s trust. Grunow convinced her client, who was living out of state at the time that it would be in her best interest to allow the court to appoint a private fiduciary to assume the role of trustee. The client took the advice of her attorney. When the client learned that a woman named Teresa Castiglione was petitioning the court for the appointment, the client asked Linda Grunow whether she knew anything about her. Grunow replied to her client's question by stating, "No, that she really didn't know too much about her, only that she believes that Castiglione was pretty honest" The client didn't oppose Castiglione's petition based on what her attorney, Grunow stated that she believed.
HERE'S THE TWIST: During the same time that the client asked Grunow about Castiglione and Grunow said she really didn't know too much about her, Grunow was Castiglione's attorney and was then currently representing her in another probate matter. Within 5-6 month's Grunow's client's aunt's trust was practically cleaned out due to the over excessive trustee and attorney fees charged by Grunow and Castiglione.

2. In a conservatorship matter, Linda Grunow was representing the conservator Teresa Castiglione. However, before Castiglione's appointment as conservator, there was the nomination of Julie Lubitz for the appointment first, (Search Insiderpages for Julie Lubitz). Castiglione and Lubitz, both, are legal clients of Linda Grunow. The nomination of Lubitz and Castiglione both came from attorney Boris Siegel of Law Office of Siegel & Wolensky (Search Insiderpages for Boris Siegel). Boris Siegel also had an attorney-client relationship with Lubitz and Castiglione. Boris Siegel's got involved in the conservatorship by pushing his way in and replacing the court appointed attorney for the representation of the conservatee. Now in any honest conservatorship, the conservatee's attorney, Siegel, the conservatee's conservator, Castiglione, and the attorney for conservatee's conservator, Grunow, all have the duty to act in the best interest of the conservatee so when Lubitz had an undisclosed trust instrument created for the unknowing conservatee and named herself the trustee of it, you would think that Siegel, Castiglione, or Grunow, if they knew about the trust, would bring it to the courts attention. Wrong, they did all know about the undisclosed trust and none of them brought it to the courts attention and it stayed that way for a year and a half until one of the conservatee's family member??s discovery that funds from the conservatorship estate were being funneled into it. Between the 4 of them, the conservatorship estate was billed approximately $700,000. over the total amount of the estate size so they all went after the conservatee's family members to pay the balance and the fees they were continuing to generate thereafter. Eighty-five percent of the amount billed to the conservatorship estate went to their fees and misappropriations. None of it went to the care of the conservatee.
3. Linda Grunow was Notary Public for a Power of Attorney document that Teresa Castiglione had prepared for one of Castiglione??s clients. Castiglione did not bring the client with her for the signature verification and the document that Grunow was Notarizing gave her interest in it. The Power of Attorney named Grunow as successor of the POA.

Was this review helpful to you?
Ratings_icons Ratings_icons

 

Wait, you're the expert.

If you've been to or used Grunow Linda M, leave a review.

It's easy, only takes a couple of minutes and you'll help thousands make an informed decision.



Write a Review