Skip to main content

Man Charged with Impersonating an Attorney in Fraudulent Scheme

SAN FRANCISCO—A federal grand jury in San Francisco indicted Michael Anthony Nelson yesterday on charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud, and aggravated identity theft, United States Attorney Joseph P. Russoniello announced. The indictment charges Nelson with carrying out a fraudulent scheme in which he impersonated a licensed attorney who is also named Michael Nelson.

According to the indictment, Michael Anthony Nelson, 39, of Orlando, Fla., is alleged to have created a fraudulent law firm, “Nelson & Associates,” with offices in Atlanta and Los Angeles. The defendant, who was not an attorney, gave himself the title of managing partner and hired office personnel and attorneys to work for him.

The indictment alleges that the defendant impersonated a legitimate attorney with a similar name and changed the State Bar of California’s online attorney profile (maintained on computer servers in San Francisco) for that attorney, Michael S. Nelson, to match an address under defendant Nelson’s control. Defendant Nelson made false representations to obtain documents from the State Bar, including a bar card, which he then used to reinforce the impersonation.

According to the indictment, defendant Nelson attracted clients by responding to Craigslist postings and registering with an online legal matching service. By representing himself as an attorney, he obtained legal fees and other funds from these clients, including at least $35,000 from Bay Area residents.

The investigation began after defendant Nelson was arrested in connection with an indictment and arrest warrant from the Northern District of Illinois.

The maximum statutory penalty for each count of mail or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343 is 20 years' imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution. The maximum statutory penalty for computer fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1030(a)(4) is five years' imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The maximum statutory penalty for aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1028A is a mandatory minimum two years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to any other sentence imposed, and a fine of $250,000. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Michelle J. Kane is the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Lauri Gomez and Rayneisha Booth. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Atlanta Police Department, and the State Bar of California.

Please note, an indictment contains only allegations against an individual and, as with all defendants, defendant Nelson must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Further Information:

Case #: CR 10-0244 MHP

A copy of this press release may be found on the U.S. Attorney's Office's website at www.usdoj.gov/usao/can.

Electronic court filings and further procedural and docket information are available at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

Judges' calendars with schedules for upcoming court hearings can be viewed on the court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov.

All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's Office should be directed to Jack Gillund at (415) 436-6599 or by e-mail at Jack.Gillund@usdoj.gov.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...