Anaheim, CA 92801
9 November 2001 | Disbarred (23 years, 7 months ago) Disbarment 00-N-15071 |
---|---|
25 May 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years ago) Ordered inactive 00-N-15071 |
12 April 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-N-15071 |
30 January 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-N-15071 (24 years, 4 months ago) |
17 August 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-PM-11765 |
9 April 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-PM-11765 |
18 June 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 93-O-20415 |
12 August 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-O-00767 |
11 April 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 93-O-20415 |
13 May 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-00767 (28 years, 1 month ago) |
29 March 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-20415 (29 years, 2 months ago) |
1 December 1981 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (43 years, 6 months ago) |
November 9, 2001 PAUL YANEZ [#100492], 49, of Anaheim was disbarred Nov. 9, 2001, and ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Yanez failed to file with the Supreme Court an affidavit attesting to his compliance with rule 955.His probation was revoked and previous stays of suspension were lifted in two consolidated matters. The underlying discipline was ordered when Yanez failed to perform legal services for two clients or return their phone calls, and failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.August 17, 2000 The probation of PAUL YANEZ [#100492], 48, of Anaheim was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered to attend ethics school, complete 12 hours of MCLE instruction in law office management and comply with rule 955. Credit towards the actual suspension will be given for the period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began April 9. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000. Yanez failed to comply with probation conditions attached to two 1998 disciplinary orders; he did not file six quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or complete 12 hours of training in law office management.The underlying disciplines involved failing to perform legal services, communicate with clients, or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he practiced law while suspended for failing to comply with a child and family support order.August 12, 1998 PAUL YANEZ [#100492], 46, of Anaheim was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 12, 1998. Yanez was suspended from practice in 1995 for not paying court-ordered family and child support.During his suspension, he represented three clients in a personal injury case which he settled and for which he took fees.He stipulated that he practiced law while not entitled.Yanez also was suspended for 60 days and placed on two years of probation in April for failing to perform legal services competently for two clients or to return their phone calls.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and participated in the proceedings.April 11, 1998 PAUL YANEZ [#100492], 45, of Modesto was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 11, 1998. In a default matter, the State Bar Court found that Yanez failed to perform legal services for two clients or return their phone calls, and failed to cooperate with the bar's investigation. In the first matter, Yanez was hired to represent a client who was injured when the garage door in her apartment fell on her. The landlord ordered her to move when he learned of the accident, and she called Yanez for advice. Repeated telephone calls to Yanez were unsuccessful, so the client consulted another attorney, who suggested she check court records to determine if a complaint was filed. No complaint had been filed. Yanez contacted the client within a week and offered to settle her case for $1,500 without mentioning her medical bills. She agreed to settle and used the money to pay her medical costs. The bills exceeded $1,500, however, and the woman's credit record was damaged. In the second case, Yanez was hired to help a client obtain title to property owned by her deceased ex-husband, which she wished to convey to their children. For more than a year, Yanez did not answer her calls or letters. Although the woman and her children executed an order Yanez prepared, he never filed it with the court. In mitigation, Yanez has no record of discipline since his 1981 admission to the bar. |