You are looking for information, articles, knowledge about the topic nail salons open on sunday near me howard kleyman attorney mn on Google, you do not find the information you need! Here are the best content compiled and compiled by the https://chewathai27.com team, along with other related topics such as: howard kleyman attorney mn
On August 30, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Howard S. Kleyman, of St. Paul, Minnesota, for his role in facilitating a fraudulent “prime bank scheme.” Kleyman was an attorney licensed to practice law in Minnesota until his recent disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Contents
Howard S. Kleyman (Release No. LR-25252; Nov. 1, 2021)
- Article author: www.sec.gov
- Reviews from users: 5015
Ratings - Top rated: 3.6
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Howard S. Kleyman (Release No. LR-25252; Nov. 1, 2021) Updating …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Howard S. Kleyman (Release No. LR-25252; Nov. 1, 2021) Updating
- Table of Contents:
Litigation Release No 25252 November 1 2021
Securities and Exchange Commission v Howard S Kleyman Civil Action No 21-cv-01943 (DÂ Minn filed August 30 2021)
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Howard S. Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0056558 :: 2021 :: Minnesota Supreme Court Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia
- Article author: law.justia.com
- Reviews from users: 19104 Ratings
- Top rated: 3.0
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Howard S. Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0056558 :: 2021 :: Minnesota Supreme Court Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration… Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Subscribe … …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Howard S. Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0056558 :: 2021 :: Minnesota Supreme Court Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration… Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Minnesota Supreme Court. Subscribe … In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Howard S. Kleyman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0056558 Minnesota Supreme Court Cases, Opinions, Decisions
- Table of Contents:
Public discipline in 2021
- Article author: www.mnbar.org
- Reviews from users: 10884 Ratings
- Top rated: 3.5
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about
Public discipline in 2021
Four attorneys were disbarred in 2021, compared to three disbarments in 2020. Barry Blomquist, Jr., Howard Kleyman, Nicholas Schutz, … … - Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for
Public discipline in 2021
Four attorneys were disbarred in 2021, compared to three disbarments in 2020. Barry Blomquist, Jr., Howard Kleyman, Nicholas Schutz, … - Table of Contents:
Howard S. Kleyman – a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Criminal Law Lawyer
- Article author: lawyers.findlaw.com
- Reviews from users: 34198 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.1
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Howard S. Kleyman – a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Criminal Law Lawyer Howard S. Kleyman, a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Lawyer, Attorney – Juvenile Law, Real Estate Law, Criminal Law. …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Howard S. Kleyman – a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Criminal Law Lawyer Howard S. Kleyman, a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Lawyer, Attorney – Juvenile Law, Real Estate Law, Criminal Law. Howard S. Kleyman, a Minneapolis, Minnesota (MN) Lawyer, Attorney – Juvenile Law, Real Estate Law, Criminal Law
- Table of Contents:
Howard S Kleyman
Map Location
How do I choose a lawyer
Not sure what questions to ask a lawyer
Want to check lawyer discipline
Questions
Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life
FOLLOW US
ABOUT US
FIND A LAWYER
SELF-HELP RESOURCES
LEGAL RESEARCH
LEGAL NETWORK
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
- Article author: www.avvo.com
- Reviews from users: 49903 Ratings
- Top rated: 3.9
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Attention Required! | Cloudflare Find Minnesota attorney Howard Kleyman in their Saint Paul office. Practices Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and debt, Other. …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Attention Required! | Cloudflare Find Minnesota attorney Howard Kleyman in their Saint Paul office. Practices Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and debt, Other.
- Table of Contents:
Please complete the security check to access wwwavvocom
Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA
What can I do to prevent this in the future
Access Denied
- Article author: www.martindale.com
- Reviews from users: 46535 Ratings
- Top rated: 4.4
- Lowest rated: 1
- Summary of article content: Articles about Access Denied This firm’s lawyers do not have peer reviews. Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed. Client Reviews. …
- Most searched keywords: Whether you are looking for Access Denied This firm’s lawyers do not have peer reviews. Peer reviews submitted prior to 2008 are not displayed. Client Reviews.
- Table of Contents:
See more articles in the same category here: 670+ tips for you.
Howard S. Kleyman (Release No. LR-25252; Nov. 1, 2021)
On August 30, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Howard S. Kleyman, of St. Paul, Minnesota, for his role in facilitating a fraudulent “prime bank scheme.” Kleyman was an attorney licensed to practice law in Minnesota until his recent disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Kleyman served as “paymaster” in at least nine transactions in which investors paid over $1.22 million in advanced fees to purchase, lease, and/or monetize purported bank instruments such as standby letters of credit or bank guarantees. As alleged in the SEC’s complaint, Kleyman disbursed investor funds, usually within days of receipt, without conducting any inquiry into whether the investors had received their promised instruments or funding. The complaint further alleges that Kleyman had no basis to believe that the purported bank instruments existed, or that they had any value. According to the complaint, Kleyman learned of many red flags suggesting that these transactions were fraudulent, which, in fact, they were. The complaint alleges that Kleyman collected $12,499 in fees from investors for the nine transactions for which he served as escrow agent.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleges that Kleyman violated the antifraud provisions of Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Kleyman agreed to a judgment that includes a permanent conduct-based injunction prohibiting him from participating in, or acting as a paymaster in connection with, bank guarantees, medium term notes, standby letters of credit, and similar instruments. Pursuant to the judgment Kleyman also agreed to pay disgorgement and interest of $13,749 as well as a civil penalty of $50,000. The Court entered the judgment on October 8, 2021.
In a related action, Kleyman also agreed to the issuance of an administrative order pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice prohibiting him from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney.
The investigation of this matter was conducted by Ariella Guardi, Jonathan Epstein, and Scott Hlavacek and was supervised by C.J. Kerstetter of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office.
For more information regarding the dangers of prime bank schemes and tips on how to avoid them, see http://www.investor.gov/investing-basics/avoiding-fraud/types-fraud/prime-bank-investments.
Public discipline in 2021
BY SUSAN HUMISTON
Public discipline plays an important role in lawyer regulation. Its purpose is not to punish the involved attorney. The goal of public discipline is to protect the public, the legal profession, and the judicial system, and to deter further misconduct by the disciplined attorney and other attorneys. An attorney’s public discipline record—including all cases cited in this article—is available by searching the attorney’s name on our website (www.lprb.mncourts.gov) using the “Lawyer Search” button.
Each year I take this opportunity to provide an overview of public discipline imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the prior year. Like many of you, I find it hard to credit that an entire year has passed since I last wrote a similar article. So much has happened, and yet time has lost so much meaning in the pandemic. While 2021 continued to cause havoc in our lives, the discipline system—like many of you—soldiered on, resulting in 28 individuals receiving public discipline.
Disbarments
The most serious discipline—disbarment—is reserved for the most serious misconduct. Four attorneys were disbarred in 2021, compared to three disbarments in 2020.
Barry Blomquist, Jr., Howard Kleyman, Nicholas Schutz, and William Sutor were disbarred in 2021. Like last year, these disbarments were notable primarily because the conduct in each went beyond the “normal” intentional misappropriation of client funds that typically leads to disbarment.
Mr. Blomquist (admitted to practice in 1980) was disbarred for misappropriating and converting trust assets for his personal use in violation of his fiduciary duties as trustee (he loaned himself $800,000 from the trust of which he was a trustee to allegedly invest in five start-up companies he claimed to have formed), refusing to comply with court orders, and failing to cooperate with the Director’s investigation. Interestingly, while Mr. Blomquist was found to have failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation, he did vigorously dispute the claims asserted against him throughout the disciplinary process. Mr. Blomquist also argued that the discipline proceedings were moot because he wanted to resign his license. The Court rejected this argument because lawyers may not resign their licenses while discipline proceedings are pending. Finally, Mr. Blomquist’s case is notable because when asked at oral argument by the Court if he acknowledged any misconduct, he replied, “None whatsoever.”
Howard Kleyman was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1971. Fifty years later, almost to the month, he was disbarred for serious misconduct that included misappropriating client funds, knowingly misusing his client trust account to further fraudulent schemes, knowingly making false statements to the Director, and failing to cooperate during the disciplinary investigation. The scheme involved in Mr. Kleyman’s case was his use of his trust account as an escrow account, taking in what were ultimately determined to be fraudulent checks, and disbursing the funds to the payee before they cleared the originating bank. This is a common scheme that lawyers have unwittingly gotten involved in by failing to conduct appropriate diligence on client transactions. Mr. Kleyman, however, was a willing participant because he continued to engage in the same conduct with the same fraudulent principals despite being advised of the scheme and long criminal history background of certain principals of the payor, and because he lied to the Director about whether he had stopped the misconduct. While the Director’s Office was investigating the fraudulent scheme, we uncovered “normal” misappropriation in Mr. Kleyman’s bankruptcy practice, where he routinely misappropriated filing fees from clients to pay other business expenses. One of the most interesting aspects of this case is that the complainant was a Japanese citizen who was defrauded, figured out how to complain to us, and originally thought the scheme was legitimate because his funds would be in an American lawyer’s trust account. After Mr. Kleyman was disbarred, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint against Mr. Kleyman for his role in acting as a “paymaster” in lending schemes to defraud investors, the same transactions involved in his disbarment.
Nicholas Schutz, admitted to practice in 2005, was disbarred for practicing law while on a disciplinary suspension and engaging in dishonest conduct. This misconduct is unfortunately not particularly notable. But the background leading to the disbarment is. Mr. Schutz was originally suspended in 2014 (less than 10 years after his admission)
for failing to maintain books and records for his trust account. This is not that unusual. What was unusual was that because he would not provide or recreate the required books and records (and we could only see a portion of the activity in the account from the bank statements we subpoenaed), he stipulated to a 90-day suspension, where his reinstatement was conditioned on a reinstatement hearing and provision of the books and records that would allow the Director to perform an audit that could not be performed in 2014.
In 2018 Mr. Schutz petitioned for reinstatement, providing the previously requested trust account books and records, and unsurprisingly, the Director discovered intentional misappropriation of client funds. At the time, I was most troubled by the fact that Mr. Schutz only acknowledged the misappropriation when directly confronted with his misconduct. At that point, I considered disbarment due to the lack of candor upon initial petitioning for reinstatement (he had to know what we were going to find, right?), but did not believe the Court’s case law (absent express dishonesty) supported such a position, particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Schutz had been out of practice for five years at this point. Mr. Schutz stipulated to an additional three-year suspension and the Court approved that disposition. Proving the axiom that you should trust your initial instincts, we soon saw Mr. Schutz again when we received a complaint regarding the immigration work he was doing. Non-lawyers can do a lot of immigration-adjacent work; they just need to be clear they are not acting as attorneys and should not cross the line into practicing law. Mr. Schutz failed to respect that line, and he ultimately stipulated to disbarment after we made it clear that no other option was on the table for him.
Finally, William Sutor (admitted to practice in 2010) was disbarred following his indictment and guilty plea to felony conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Mr. Sutor’s conviction related to his personal injury practice and involved the use of “runners” to direct patients to chiropractors and clients to the firm by paying referral fees to those runners disguised as legitimate expenses. As a felony, this was undisputedly a serious crime. Mr. Sutor did not agree that disbarment was the appropriate disposition, however. Mr. Sutor argued that because he was remorseful, no individual client was harmed, and he fully cooperated with law enforcement and the Director’s Office, a suspension would be more appropriate than disbarment. The referee disagreed, finding that Mr. Sutor lied to both law enforcement and the Director’s Office, and continued to minimize his unlawful activity at the referee hearing—in part by providing false testimony at the hearing. Mr. Sutor stipulated to disbarment following the referee’s recommendation for disbarment.
Seventeen lawyers were suspended in 2021, as compared to 24 suspensions in 2020. Most of the suspensions in 2021 were lengthy, and most also included a requirement that the attorney go through a renewed fitness investigation called a reinstatement hearing.
Suspensions
Seventeen lawyers were suspended in 2021, as compared to 24 suspensions in 2020. Most of the suspensions in 2021 were lengthy, and most also included a requirement that the attorney go through a renewed fitness investigation called a reinstatement hearing, which also requires court approval before the attorney may be reinstated to the practice of law. This too is unusual; in a typical year we will have more cases with suspensions of less than 90 days. (Suspensions of more than 90 days trigger the reinstatement hearing requirement unless it’s waived by the Court.) In 2021, the Court also imposed its first 10-day suspension (usually the minimum suspension is 30 days) on condition that the lawyer permanently resign his license following the suspension. In combination, and under the unique facts presented, the Court agreed with the referee that the unusual arrangement adequately served the purposes of discipline.
Public reprimands
Seven attorneys received public reprimands in 2021 (three reprimands-only, four reprimands and probation), up from six in 2020. A public reprimand is the least severe public sanction the Court generally imposes. One of the most common reasons for public reprimands is failure to maintain trust account books and records, leading to negligent misappropriation of client funds. However, once again, 2021 proved to be unusual in that only one of the seven attorneys received a reprimand for books and records violations resulting in negligent misappropriation of client funds. The remaining attorneys received public discipline for client neglect, failure of communication, and, in one case, lack of diligence and competence that allowed a statute of limitations to run.
Finally, one attorney received a public reprimand for engaging in the practice of law while on restricted status for several years. This is of course a cautionary tale for us all—timely pay your annual registration fee and make sure you timely report your CLE compliance. The Minnesota Lawyer Registration Office and the CLE Board do a lot to remind lawyers of their non-compliance, but at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of each of us to ensure pro-active compliance, and that starts with always having your updated mailing and email addresses on file with the Lawyer Registration Office! As a gift to yourself in the new year, please double check that your information with the Lawyer Registration Office (www.lro.mn.gov) is current and that you understand any upcoming CLE reporting deadlines and have an up-to-date email address in OASIS (www.cle.mn.gov).
Conclusion
The OLPR maintains on its website (lprb.mncourts.gov) a list of disbarred and currently suspended attorneys. You can also check the public disciplinary history of any Minnesota attorney by using the “Lawyer Search” function on the first page of the OLPR website. Fortunately, very few of the more than 25,000 active lawyers in Minnesota have disciplinary records.
As they say, “there but for the grace of God go I.” May these public discipline cases remind you of the importance of maintaining an ethical practice, and may they also motivate you to take care of yourself, so that you are in the best possible position to handle our very challenging jobs. Call if you need assistance—651-296-3952.
Susan Humiston is the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and Client Security Board. Prior to her appointment, Susan worked in-house at a publicly traded company, and in private practice as a litigation attorney. [email protected]
Howard Kleyman
Attorneys by State & County Alabama -Clarke County -Escambia County -Jefferson County -Mobile County -Monroe County -Shelby County -Washington County Arizona Arkansas -Arkansas -Conway -Faulkner -Lonoke -Perry -Pope -Pulaski -Saline -Yell California -Alameda County -Alpine County -Amador County -Butte County -Calaveras County -Colusa County -Contra Costa County -Del Norte County -El Dorado County -Fresno County -Glenn County -Humboldt County -Imperial County -Inyo County -Kern County -Kings County -Lake County -Lassen County -Los Angeles County -Madera County -Maricopa -Marin County -Mariposa County -Martin County -Mendocino County -Merced County -Modoc County -Mono County -Monterey County -Napa County -Nevada County -Orange County -Palm Beach County -Placer County -Plumas County -Riverside County -Sacramento County -San Benito County -San Bernardino County -San Diego County -San Francisco County -San Joaquin County -San Luis Obispo County -San Mateo County -Santa Barbara County -Santa Clara County -Santa Cruz County -Shasta County -Sierra County -Siskiyou County -Solano County -Sonoma County -Stanislaus County -Sutter County -Tehama County -Trinity County -Tulare County -Tuolumne County -Ventura County -Yolo County -Yuba County Connecticut -Hartford County -New Haven County Florida -Alachua County -Baker County -Bradford County -Brevard County -Broward County -Charlotte County -Clay County -Collier County -Columbia County -Dade -Duval County -Flagler County -Hendry County -Highlands County -Hillsborough County -Lake County -Lee County -Manatee County -Martin County -Miami-Dade County -Nassau County -Orange County -Osceola County -Palm Beach -Pasco County -Pinellas County -Polk County -Putnam County -Seminole County -St. Johns County -Sumter County Georgia -Barrow County -Camden County -Clarke County -Glynn County -Rockdale County -Walton County Illinois -Bureau County -Cook County -DuPage County -Fulton County -Henry County -Kane County -Knox County -Lake County -Livingston County -Marshall County -McHenry County -McLean County -Peoria County -Putnam County -Tazewell County -Will County -Woodford County Indiana -Fountain County -Madison County -Montgomery County -Morgan County -Parke County -Putnam County -Shelby County -St. Joseph County -Tippecanoe County Iowa -Benton County -Clarke County -Dallas County -Iowa County -Jasper County -Johnson County -Jones County -Linn County -Lucas County -Madison County -Marion County -Polk County -Warren County Jersey City -The Waterfront Kansas -Johnson County Kentucky -Boone County -Campbell County -Kenton County Maryland -Anne Arundel -Baltimore -Carroll -Charles -Howard -Montgomery -Prince Georges Massachusetts Minnesota -Anoka County -Blue Earth County -Carver County -Dakota County -Dodge County -Freeborn County -Goodhue County -Hennepin County -Mower County -Nicollet County -Olmsted County -Ramsey County -Scott County -Sherburne County -Sibley County -Washington County -Winona County -Wright County Mississippi Missouri -Adair County -Andrew County -Atchison County -Audrain County -Barry County -Barton County -Bates County -Benton County -Bollinger County -Boone County -Buchanan County -Butler County -Caldwell County -Callaway County -Camden County -Cape Girardeau County -Carroll County -Carter County -Cass County -Cedar County -Chariton County -Christian County -Clark County -Clay County -Clinton County -Cole County -Cooper County -Crawford County -Dade County -Dallas County -Daviess County -DeKalb County -Dent County -Douglas County -Dunklin County -Franklin County -Gasconade County -Gentry County -Greene County -Grundy County -Harrison County -Henry County -Hickory County -Holt County -Howard County -Howell County -Iron County -Jackson County -Jasper County -Jefferson County -Johnson County -Knox County -Laclede County -Lafayette County -Lawrence County -Lewis County -Lincoln County -Linn County -Livingston County -Macon County -Madison County -Maries County -Marion County -McDonald County -Mercer County -Miller County -Mississippi County -Moniteau County -Monroe County -Montgomery County -Morgan County -New Madrid County -Newton County -Nodaway County -Oregon County -Osage County -Ozark County -Pemiscot County -Perry County -Pettis County -Phelps County -Pike County -Platte County -Polk County -Pulaski County -Putnam County -Ralls County -Randolph County -Ray County -Reynolds County -Ripley County -Saline County -Schuyler County -Scotland County -Scott County -Shannon County -Shelby County -St. Charles County -St. Clair County -St. Francois County -St. Louis (city) -St. Louis County -Ste. Genevieve County -Stoddard County -Stone County -Sullivan County -Taney County -Texas County -Vernon County -Warren County -Washington County -Wayne County -Webster County -Worth County -Wright County New Jersey -Atlantic County -Bergen County -Burlington County -Camden Corunty -Cape May County -Cumberland County -Essex County -Gloucester County -Hudson County -Hunterdon County -Middlesex County -Monmouth -Morris County -Passaic County -Salem County -Somerset County -Union County New York -Boroughs of Bronx -Boroughs of New York -Boroughs of Queens and Kings -Bronx County -Erie County -Kings County -Nassau County -New York County -Niagara County -Onondaga County -Orange County -Putnam County -Queens County -Richmond County -Rockland County -Suffolk County -Westchester County New York City -Bronx -Brooklyn -Manhattan -Queens North Carolina -Alamance County -Brunswick County -Buncombe County -Cabarrus County -Carteret County -Caswell County -Catawba County -Chatham County -Craven County -Cumberland County -Dare County -Davidson County -Davie County -Durham County -Forsyth County -Gaston County -Granville County -Guilford County -Harnett County -Henderson County -Iredell County -Johnston County -Lee County -Lincoln County -Mecklenburg County -Montgomery County -Moore County -New Hanover County -Onslow County -Orange County -Person County -Pitt County -Randolph County -Rockingham County -Rowan County -Stanly County -Stokes County -Surry County -Union County -Wake County -Yadkin County Ohio -Butler County -Clark County -Clermont County -Clinton County -Cuyahoga County -Darke County -Fayette County -Franklin County -Geauga County -Greene County -Hamilton County -Lake County -Lorain County -Madison County -Mahoning County -Medina County -Miami County -Montgomery County -Portage County -Preble County -Summit County -Trumbull County -Warren County Oklahoma Oregon -Clackamas County -Columbia County -Lane County -Linn County -Marion County -Multnomah County -Polk County -Portland -Salem -Washington County -Yamhill County Pennsylvania -Adams -Allegheny County -Beaver County -Berks -Bucks County -Chester County -Cumberland -Dauphin -Delaware County -Franklin County -Lancaster -Lebanon -Lehigh County -Montgomery County -Northampton County -Perry County -Philadelphia County -Washington County -Westmoreland -York South Carolina -Berkeley -Charleston -Chester County -Colleton -Dorchester -Dorchester County -Greenville -Lancaster County -Richland County -York County Tennessee -Cheatham -Davidson County -Dickson County -Montgomery County -Robertson County -Rutherford County -Sumner County -Williamson County -Wilson County Texas -Balco County -Bandera County -Bastrop -Bexar County -Brazoria County -Burnet County -Chambers County -Collin -Comal County -Dallas -Denton -Ellis -Fort Bend County -Galveston County -Gillespie -Guadalupe County -Harris County -Hays County -Hood -Johnson -Kendall County -Kerr County -Liberty County -Medina County -Parker -Rockwall -Tarrant -Travis County -Waller County -Williamson County -Wilson County -Wise Virginia -Amelia County -Brunswick County -Caroline County -Charles City County -Chesapeake County -Chesterfield County -Dinwiddie County -Essex County -Fairfax (city) -Fairfax County -Fauquier County -Gloucester County -Goochland County -Greensville County -Hampton (city) -Hanover County -Henrico County -James City -King and Queen County -King George County -King William County -Lancaster County -Loudoun County -Lunenburg County -Mecklenburg County -Middlesex County -New Kent County -Newport News (city) -Norfolk County -Northumberland County -Nottoway County -Portsmouth County -Powhatan County -Prince Edward County -Prince George County -Prince William County -Richmond County -Spotsylvania County -Stafford County -Surry County -Sussex County -Westmoreland County -Williamsburg (city) -York County Washington -Clark -Cowliz County -King County -Kitsap County -Mason County -Pierce County -Portland -Seattle -Snohomish County -Tacoma -Thurston County -Vancouver Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin -Milwaukee County -Ozaukee County -Washington County -Waukesha County
Practice Areas Bankruptcy Business Civil Litigation Domestic Relations Elder Law Estate Planning Immigration Intellectual Property Landlord Tenant Personal Injury Probate Real Estate Law Social Security Tax
So you have finished reading the howard kleyman attorney mn topic article, if you find this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much. See more:
