Bankruptcy by the Numbers

A helpful tipster sent us the link to a report put out by "722 Redemption Funding, Inc.," a company that does redemptions under Section 722 of the bankruptcy code. You know, Section 722? (We have no idea.)

Anyhoo ... the report, which listed attorneys by state and number of cases filed, included some interesting information about our local BK superstars. Let's not get too excited about that economic turnaround just yet, here are the top 5 bankruptcy attorneys in Nevada in terms of the number of Chapter 7 bankruptcies filed from January 2010 through March 2010:

1. Anthony Deluca (498 cases)
2. Frank Sorrentino (302 cases)
3. Lisa Garofalo (260 cases)
4. Randolph Goldberg (236 cases)
5. Christine Stokes (174 cases)

It looks like Deluca is having no trouble filling the tank of that Lamborghini, and old man Sorrentino still has it. And lookie there, Mr. Rule 11 came in at number 4 ... ethical violations be damned.

On a side note, are those numbers positively terrifying to anyone else?

(722 Redemption Report - Scroll down to page 108 for NV)

Golightly & Assoc. v. Frank Sorentino (Round Two)--ends 7/16 at 5 pm

Today, it's the Man Who Never Blinks (Chad Golightly) v. the Man Who Never Ages (Frank Sorrentino)

In his first round match, Golightly stared down the competition, taking in 61% of the vote (background on G&A and first round results found here). Meanwhile, Mr. Sorrentino outlasted his last opponent and pulled in 68% of the vote (background on Frank Sorrentino and first round results found here). Voting ends on July 16 at 5 p.m.

Randolph Goldberg v. Frank Sorrentino (Round 1 of the Tournament of Billboard/Television Vegas Law Firms

The Round One match ups continue. Today's offering: Randolph Goldberg v. Frank Sorrentino (Voting will be open until 5 p.m. on Tues., 6/30).

Let's meet the contenders:

Randolph Goldberg

Randy recently got into a bit of a pickle with bankruptcy judge Bruce A. Markell, getting himself sanctioned. One such sanction forced Goldberg to provide clients with copies of BAM's opinion about his ethical shortcomings.

There is no doubt, however, that Goldberg is a "commercial personality." Any television viewer sans Tivo can attest to that. What is more fascinating about Goldberg is the fact that he doesn't have a website, instead choosing to have his firm listed on various "Yellow Page" type websites (see here here here) where readers and past clients can leave comments about his quality of service. Even better, Goldberg responds to the comments personally. Here's one of our favorites:

Response from this business:

LIAR Posted at: 06/26/09
MS. [REDACTED] IS A LIAR AND SHE IS SLANDERING ME. I HAVE HER SIGNATURES AND SHE KNEW EXACTLY ALL FEES. SHE HAS A GAMBLING PROBLEM AND DOESNT WANNA PY BACK HER DEBTS DESPITE HER EXCESSIVE INCOME. SHE IS A CROOK WHO DOESN'T PAY HER BILLS

Now THAT'S how to treat a client! The original comment posted by the client would actually be libel, not slander, but he's a bankruptcy attorney so we'll give him a pass. Goldberg is certainly feisty, but will it be enough to overcome the man who never ages ...

Frank Sorrentino

Anyone who has lived in Vegas for a while is familiar with the name "Attorney Frank Sorrentino." Not because of his reputation for being a good attorney, but because of his reputation for producing the most god-awful commercial to ever run on local television.

Sorrentino's "forever 1985" style advertisement has been going strong since, well, the 1980's. The commercial itself has remained unchanged.

We've been meaning to pay his office a visit to see what he actually looks like 20 years later. We just can't seem to find a recent photograph of the man (besides the screen-capture from his commercial that he posts on his website). Maybe he can't be photographed ... like a vampire!

We're not real familiar with his reputation in legal circles, so you readers will have to enlighten us in the comments. We would be very interested in hearing any background information regarding those commercials. Did he pay so much for them that he is still recouping his costs? Does he not know they look dated? Was he hideously disfigured in the early 1990's? Inquiring minds want to know!

So there you have it, feistiness vs. experience. What do you think, readers?