View More Categories


Assistant Bar Counsel Phil Pattee Nevada State Bar 3100 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102
Dear Mr. Pattee,

As a follow up to our telephone conversation of January 11, 2017, I would like to provide the
documentation you requested concerning the activities of disbarred attorney Phil Singer (State Bar No. 7914). In review, I contacted the State Bar of Nevada inquiring about Mr. Singer’s “employment status” in regard to his requirement to “notify the State Bar” should “Singer work in the legal community during the time of his disbarment” (see, Attachment A). Based on our conversation, it is apparent Mr. Singer is in clear violation of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, Order No. 57548 filed on December 21,

Per our conversation, you were able to confirm the same information that is made available to the public on the State Bar of Nevada website within the “Find a Lawyer – Search Attorneys.” The sordid business history of Mr. Singer’s legal practice is readily available detailing the Order of Temporary Suspension in 2008, Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea in 2010 and Order Approving Revised Conditional Guilty Plea in 2011.

The conditions of Mr. Singer’s disbarment are clearly detailed, specific to the matters of my inquiry are provided in the Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea in 2010 stating: “4. That should Respondent work in the legal community during the time of his temporary suspension and disbarment, that he notify the State Bar of the attorney he is working for and the scope of the employment so that the State Bar can ensure Respondent is receiving adequate supervision. Respondent shall continue to notify the State Bar should he change
employers.” (see, Attachment B)

Further in our conversation, you disclosed additional information addressing the purpose of my inquiry that is not made available to the public via the website. You stated that based on the information available in the Mr. Singer file before you, the last note inputted was dated all the way back to 2012 which documented a communication having nothing to do with “employment status.” In fact, apparently there are no notes that Mr. Singer has ever contacted the State Bar to update any information concerning his employment working “in the legal community” since he was disbarred.

Based on our conversation, it is very disconcerting that Mr. Singer has been working for the Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. of Las Vegas which would be in violation of an Order issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.

It appears neither Mr. Singer or the law firm appear to have any respect and/or concern that his working as a “law clerk” without notifying the State Bar is a direct violation of the Order issued in 2011. The fact of his employment in the “legal community” has been repeatedly documented in a case currently being adjudicated in the District Court Clark County, Nevada before the
Honorable Joe Hardy (Case No.: A-15-724483-C).

The evidence of Mr. Singer’s employment as a law clerk for the Law Office of Dan M. Winder is irrefutable. The involvement of Phil Singer as a law clerk for the law firm has become a very contentious issue resulting in a number of different legal arguments significantly affecting the case:
A) The employment can be confirmed back to at least April 16, 2014. The Defendants in the case referenced received a communication from Phil Singer working on behalf of the Law Office of
Dan M. Winder, specifically working on behalf of Dan Winder (see, Attachment C). This document has been entered into the Court’s Record in several filings.
B) This employment can be confirmed to be as recent as January 27, 2017 when a subpoena for Mr. Singer was delivered to and accepted by the Law Office of Dan M. Winder at 3507 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89102 (see, Attachment D). Again, filed in the Court’s Record.
C) An Order Requiring Production of Declarations was entered by the Judge Hardy during a hearing on December 13, 2016 (see, Attachment E). Addressing the issue of Mr. Singer’s involvement in the case, it was determined by the Court a Declaration detailing the circumstances was necessary to properly rule on the Defendants Special Motion to Dismiss (Anti-SLAPP). The language of the Order identifies specific requirements to be addressed in a Declaration of Mr. Singer. There can be no dispute that Mr. Singer has been in violation of the terms of his disbarment. The Order states relevant information for the State Bar’s review: “Plaintiff is required to submit to this Court an affidavit or sworn declaration from Phil Singer, the person who has been represented to this Court to be a current law clerk at Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm.”

D) The Defendants in the case pursued the non-compliance of Mr. Singer by filing an Application for Order to Show Cause on January 5, 2017 (see, Attachment F). The filing details the actions of both Mr. Singer and the Law Office of Dan M. Winder in their ignoring the Court’s Order. The Court scheduled an Order to Show Cause hearing for February 8, 2017. It is worth noting the purpose of having a Subpoena served upon Mr. Singer as previously discussed was to assure he will be present to testify as to his participation as a “law clerk” in violation of the terms of hisdisbarment.
E) After the non-compliance by Mr. Singer of Judge Hardy’s Order and the Order to Show Cause Hearing scheduled for February 8, 2017, the response by the Law Office of Dan M. Winder was to file a Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition on January 10, 2017 (see, Attachment G). When you weed through all the smoke and mirrors of nonsensical legal arguments, the basis for the filing amounts to an alleged “attorney client privilege” issue.

This is truly ironic considering the argument involves the activities of a disbarred attorney working as a “law clerk” who is also prohibited from ANY “employment” in the “law community” without notification being provided to the State Bar and his prohibited communications with the Defendants. Also, buried in the 215 pages of nonsense is the most germane admission relevant to the State Bar which is found on page 8 confirming: “In the instant case, the district court has ordered the Petitioner to produce an affidavit from Phil Singer, an employee of the Law Firm of Dan Winder, LLC.” And also, “In this affidavit the district court is requiring Mr. Singer to admit to sending this alleged order of expungement or provide a copy of the attachment he sent to the
F) It is not a surprise that such a transparent attempt to avert being held accountable for non compliance of the Court’s Order based on such ridiculous legal basis drivel was rejected. On January 30, 2017, In the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada, the Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition was summarily denied (see, Attachment H).
G) It is interesting to note that the Law Office of Dan M. Winder may have been aware that the employment of Mr. Singer could possibly represent an issue that required attention. This may
explain the unjustified and legally unsound arguments put forth in a Motion to Seal Records and Proceedings on December 9, 2016 to have been an attempt to bury the public records that clearly expose Mr. Singer’s employment which has been a clear violation of the conditions of his disbarment (see, Attachment I).
H) Again, such tactics to hide Mr. Singer’s activities were rejected by the Court as the Motion to Seal Records and Proceedings was denied.

As previously stated, the evidence establishing Mr. Singer’s employment in the “law community” is irrefutable. An issue that has occurred to me since our telephone conversation and researching the multitude of filings submitted in the case before Judge Hardy, what is the culpability of the Law Office of Dan M. Winder? Should it not be a concern that merits the attention of the Nevada State Bar if a law firm knowingly hired and continues to employ a “law clerk” in violation of an Order issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada? Is it not a matter for the State Bar to investigate in order to protect the public from the very circumstances that have occurred in the case being litigated in the District Court currently?

Based on the provided evidence for the State Bar’s attention and review, I would like to request that a formal inquiry be initiated to determine the veracity of allegations presented and if any potential violations of the Nevada State Bar may be have occurred by either Mr. Singer and/or the Law Office of Dan M. Winder. If true, it is likely that such violations could have relevance to any number of past and present litigation beside the case currently before the Honorable Joe Hardy (Case No.: A-15-724483-C).


More information and exhibits can be obtained by emailing


Attorney Phil Singer would never pay anyone back the money he stole. He would not attempt to have his law license reinstated. What he did do was work as a "law clerk" and/or "paralegal" for the Law Offices Of Dan Winder even though he was prohibited by the Nevada Supreme Court Disbarment Order unless approves by the NV State Bar. 


Las Vegas lawyer Philip Singer disbarred Stole over $100,000 of Clients Money

Sun Archives

The Nevada Supreme Court has disbarred Las Vegas lawyer Philip Singer for five years and ordered him to repay $67,334 he stole from eight clients.

The court said Singer pleaded guilty to 14 counts lodged by the State Bar of Nevada, including misappropriation, failure to communicate with clients and lack of competence and candor.

Before he can be practice law again, he must pass the Nevada Bar Examination and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. He must also have 15 hours of continuing legal education in ethics, professional conduct or law office management.

Because of the "egregiousness and frequency of Singer's misconduct," the court ordered the disbarment to take effect now rather than back to 2008, when he was suspended from practice.

Singer was accused of not distributing settlement funds and mixing his personal money with client accounts. He was also accused in 2008 of cashing retainer checks without performing any service.

The Supreme Court last year rejected a proposed settlement that would have disbarred Singer for three years. It said that was inadequate to protect the public and said it would accept a five-year disbarment.

The first complaint was filed in 2006 against Singer.

The court said Singer must notify the state Bar if he gets a job in the legal community during his disbarment. He must submit to binding arbitration with the state Bar Fee Dispute Arbitration Committee on issues totaling $32,200, and he must pay the cost of the bar's investigation.

Source: Las Vegas Sun

Supreme Court: Tougher penalties needed for Las Vegas lawyer

CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court says it wants to see tougher penalties imposed on a Las Vegas lawyer accused of mishandling close to $100,000.

The court has rejected the recommendation of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board that Philip Singer be disbarred for three years and repay $67,334 to eight clients. The board also said Singer must submit to binding arbitration on $32,200 in dispute.

Singer pleaded guilty to 14 counts of bar violations and admitted to 59 violations involving misappropriation of funds and failure to communicate with his clients.

He also pleaded guilty to lack of competence and diligence and lack of candor and cooperation with the State Bar.

The Supreme Court said, “We reject the conditional guilty plea agreement on grounds that the conditions imposed on Singer’s disbarment are inadequate to protect the public.”

It sent the case back to the disciplinary board saying Singer should be disbarred for five years and that he must complete 15 hours of education on ethics and pass the professional responsibility examination.

The court agreed with the other conditions of the conditional plea agreement by Singer that he must notify the bar association if he is working for an attorney to make sure there is adequate supervision and that he must pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

Source: Las Vegas Sun

Nevada Suspends Lawyer Accused of Stealing from Clients

The Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily suspended a Las Vegas attorney accused of misappropriating client funds and accepting retainers without performing any services.

Philip Singer is accused of not distributing settlement funds and mixing his personal funds with client accounts.

According to the order of suspension:

Singer appears to have misappropriated funds from clients and third-party lienholders, accepted and cashed retainer checks without performing any services, and commingled client and personal funds.

The State Bar of Nevada will hold hearings on the matter in March. Singer’s attorney declined to comment on the case.

Singer handled divorce, personal injury and criminal cases. He represented Nicolas Serrano-Villagrana, the drunken driver whose pickup plowed through a bus stop in 2004, killing a 4-year-old boy.

Serrano-Villagrana was convicted in 2005 and later received a prison sentence of 12 to 40 years.

If Singer is found guilty, this would be the first case of corruption in the entire history of the city of Las Vegas.


  • Regina Boeckle • 

    I was awarded a judgement in the sum of 25,000$ for a case that Mr. Singer handled for me. I would like to know what I can do to recover the monies owed to me.

  • Anonymous • 

    This attorney let a statue of limitations run out and he owes me 27,000.00$. and im pissed.

Source: JD Journal