Why was plaintiff Carter Stephens not informed by the State Bar of the neglectful attorney's record he retained?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ; 1. The plaintiff Carter Stephens was not informed by the State Bar of the abhorrent record of the neglectful attorney he subsequently retained. This so attorney destroyed his case, and left it in shambles. Why is it that the ae ; plaintiff/appellant Carter Stephens attorney Lori Smith is able to render these’ a a destructive actions arid not be iade résporisible for them? She hés no : me : malpractice insurance. 2. F.RC.P. 9024 60(b)(1)(2)(3)(6) is @ rule that was established by the courts to address the unfair dismissal of clients cases by neglectful attorneys. This : would bring the case back from denial, and or dismissal to the lower court to have the case finally be heard on its merits, Tani vs Cmty Dental, Lal vs State | of Calif. Why is it that plaintiff Stephens who encountered the same, ifnot worse neglect and abandonment conditions than Tani or Lal, with his attorney, deserve the same privilege? 3, Why has this attorney Lori Smith been allowed to continue this debase pattern ‘ of abuse and neglect, not just with plaintiff Carter Stephens, but also before ; him, with 4 other clients in a destruction of their cases as well, and is still : ; practicing? Conduct that plaintiff/appellant Stephens was not made aware of . before his retaining of this attorney. 4. Inbeing well aware of the conduct of this attorney in the.case of ; plaintiff/appellant Stephens, why have the courts continued to ignore any type of repair or relief that they could give to client Carter Stephens? Actually 7 ; supporting this attorney Smith in her debase, neglectful ways. ; 5. Why weren’t the Hendersen Factors, and “less drastic sanctions” applied __-when the judge first noticed problems with plaintiff Stephens attorney? 6 Why is plaintiff/appellant Stephens being treated in this fashion with no relief? These questions are being presented to address the unfair denial and dismissal of plaintiff Stephens Adversary in the lower courts under the application of failure to prosecute only. No merits or application of bankruptcy law are questioned or applied.