“The Applicant practices in Missouri. A series of judicial opinions there have indicated that the Applicant cannot or will not comply with procedural requirements.”

“The Applicant has filed many pro se actions against various vendors and service providers [citation ommitted], and has also been sued by a variety of the same.”

“Throughout these proceedings, for example, the Applicant has filed duplicative, sometimes barely coherent motions or requests, often via telecopier, which faxes stop in mid-stream.”

“The Applicant has also sued clients to collect fees a total of 42 times.”

And this powerful conclusion –

“Thus, as both the Missouri rulings regarding Ms. Mello’s appellate filings and our own experience indicate, Ms. Mello does not or cannot pursue legal proceedings in an efficient and reasonable manner. What appears to elevate this flaw into an incurable character attribute is Ms. Mello’s refusal to accept responsibility or recognize that her behavior is in any way questionable.”

I just googled the name of the attorney (Susan Mello) and found this gem. It seems that Ms. Mello has a penchant for going after ex-clients. And the judges on the Appeals Court didn’t find much merit in her case, saying:

“Needless to say, there is nothing concise about plaintiff’s legal reasoning, and nothing summary about her explanations. For example, her complaint in I.A.a. as to Hirschfeld leaves us mystified. Apparently, plaintiff is claiming the trial court erred in a ruling because Hirschfeld waived a defense. What the ruling was and what the defense was remains a mystery.”

and

“Plaintiff’s egregious violations of Rule 84.04(d) preserve nothing for our review, requiring our dismissal of her appeal. Although sometimes courts have been reluctant to punish innocent parties for the shortcomings of appellate counsel, see Thummel, 570 S.W.2d at 690, here we have no such hesitancy where the appellate counsel herself is the party that will suffer the sanction. Plaintiff’s disregard of appellate rules has previously been noted in Clear v. Missouri Coordinating Bd. for Higher Educ., 23 S.W.3d 896 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) and Buford v. Mello, 40 S.W.3d 400 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001). And continues to be noted even today. Mello v. Giliberto et al., No. ED79491 (Mo.App. E.D. Feb. 5, 2002).”

and

“Searching the record here to ascertain the gravamina of plaintiff’s claims of error would be like searching for needles in a haystack. In Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 537 (1953), Justice Jackson observed that “(h)e who must search a haystack for a needle is likely to end up with the attitude that the needle is not worth the search.” Here, we are frankly skeptical of the existence of any needles. But, more importantly, we declare ourselves unwilling to search in this haystack.”

I’m not an attorney, but: Wow.