Perez Law Group, APC

I am emotional expressing this with gratitude about Perez Legal Group. My mother is 72 years old, Perez Legal Group helped my mother obtain her citizenship. The only thing I could say about Perez Legal Group is pure professionalism, straightforward, extremely knowledgeable about immigration law. I can't thank them enough. There is no price on the reaction my mother made when she got sworn in. Thanks again Perez Legal Group doing this is the least I can do!

I am emotional expressing this with gratitude about Perez Legal Group. My mother is 72 years old, Perez Legal Group helped my mother obtain her citizenship. The only thing I could say about Perez Legal Group is pure professionalism, straightforward, extremely knowledgeable about immigration law. I can't thank them enough. There is no price on the reaction my mother made when she got sworn in. Thanks again Perez Legal Group doing this is the least I can do!

I’m extremely disappointed with my experience involving Judge Cindy Pánuco (Perez & Perez APC). In my opinion, her conduct in a recent civil case raised serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and adherence to legal procedure. Orders were issued without proper notice, critical evidence was ignored, and sanctions were imposed despite significant procedural irregularities—including issues with improper filings and lack of prefiling orders. While everyone is entitled to their day in court, I did not feel I received one. I’ve since taken steps to report these concerns to the appropriate oversight bodies, including the Commission on Judicial Performance. If you’re involved in litigation where she presides, I highly recommend you document everything, demand signed orders, and preserve the full docket history. This is not just about a legal loss—this is about the integrity of the legal system and how it should treat all parties equally, regardless of their representation status. I hope this review helps others make informed decisions and remain vigilant. In my opinion, Judge Cindy Pánuco failed to uphold basic due process protections in my case. I brought serious concerns to her attention regarding documented misconduct by opposing counsel, Christopher M. Brainard, including: The use of a fraudulent “Notice of Sale” with a fake sale date, a sheriff's department address that turned out to be a men’s jail, and no lawful writ. Unauthorized access and use of my Social Security number, which he used to send intimidating notices to my lender and first lienholder in an attempt to sabotage my home. Improper recording of writs and liens in counties where I never owned property (Santa Clara and Los Angeles), while the only relevant property was in Orange County. Despite filing ex parte applications and providing documentation showing these actions, Judge Pánuco took no corrective action. Instead, she denied my requests without review, refused to vacate clearly improper sanctions, and blocked further filings. This was after a case had already been voluntarily dismissed, yet she allowed Brainard to proceed with motions and enforcement tactics post-dismissal — in clear violation of jurisdictional rules. In my view, Judge Pánuco either ignored or enabled abuse of the court process by a known violator of professional ethics. This experience has caused serious emotional and financial harm, and it raises urgent concerns about the court’s integrity and oversight. I believe the public deserves to know how these matters were handled — or rather, not handled — by a sitting judge at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Dept. 26 (Spring Street Courthouse).

I’m extremely disappointed with my experience involving Judge Cindy Pánuco (Perez & Perez APC). In my opinion, her conduct in a recent civil case raised serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and adherence to legal procedure. Orders were issued without proper notice, critical evidence was ignored, and sanctions were imposed despite significant procedural irregularities—including issues with improper filings and lack of prefiling orders. While everyone is entitled to their day in court, I did not feel I received one. I’ve since taken steps to report these concerns to the appropriate oversight bodies, including the Commission on Judicial Performance. If you’re involved in litigation where she presides, I highly recommend you document everything, demand signed orders, and preserve the full docket history. This is not just about a legal loss—this is about the integrity of the legal system and how it should treat all parties equally, regardless of their representation status. I hope this review helps others make informed decisions and remain vigilant. In my opinion, Judge Cindy Pánuco failed to uphold basic due process protections in my case. I brought serious concerns to her attention regarding documented misconduct by opposing counsel, Christopher M. Brainard, including: The use of a fraudulent “Notice of Sale” with a fake sale date, a sheriff's department address that turned out to be a men’s jail, and no lawful writ. Unauthorized access and use of my Social Security number, which he used to send intimidating notices to my lender and first lienholder in an attempt to sabotage my home. Improper recording of writs and liens in counties where I never owned property (Santa Clara and Los Angeles), while the only relevant property was in Orange County. Despite filing ex parte applications and providing documentation showing these actions, Judge Pánuco took no corrective action. Instead, she denied my requests without review, refused to vacate clearly improper sanctions, and blocked further filings. This was after a case had already been voluntarily dismissed, yet she allowed Brainard to proceed with motions and enforcement tactics post-dismissal — in clear violation of jurisdictional rules. In my view, Judge Pánuco either ignored or enabled abuse of the court process by a known violator of professional ethics. This experience has caused serious emotional and financial harm, and it raises urgent concerns about the court’s integrity and oversight. I believe the public deserves to know how these matters were handled — or rather, not handled — by a sitting judge at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Dept. 26 (Spring Street Courthouse).