Van Nuys, CA 91406-4151
25 August 2011 | Active (12 years, 8 months ago) |
---|---|
27 May 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 02-O-13607 |
5 December 2003 | Active (20 years, 5 months ago) |
17 May 2002 | Active (21 years, 12 months ago) |
3 March 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 98-O-00585 |
12 January 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12258 (23 years, 4 months ago) |
18 December 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12734 (23 years, 4 months ago) |
21 September 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 98-O-00585 (23 years, 7 months ago) |
10 July 2000 | Active (23 years, 10 months ago) |
7 June 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-H-10274 |
22 October 1999 | Active (24 years, 6 months ago) |
27 September 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
20 April 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-H-10274 (25 years ago) |
24 October 1998 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 93-O-10900 (25 years, 6 months ago) |
15 January 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-10900 (26 years, 4 months ago) |
2 October 1997 | Public reproval with/duties 96-O-00849 (26 years, 7 months ago) |
10 June 1997 | Active (26 years, 11 months ago) |
11 May 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years ago) Ordered inactive 96-0-00849 |
14 March 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-00849 (27 years, 2 months ago) |
1 December 1981 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years, 5 months ago) |
May 26, 2011 JOSEPH TRENK [#101459], 57, of Van Nuys was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect May 26, 2011. Trenk successfully completed the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline Program after showing a connection between his misconduct and his mental health issues. He stipulated to three counts of misconduct, stemming from his violation of probation conditions attached to a 2002 disciplinary order. He practiced law while suspended, violated a court order by submitting eight of 12 probation reports late and he failed to pay restitution to a client.Trenk has been disciplined four times since 1997 with a public reproval and three suspensions for misconduct that included failing to perform legal services competently, return a client’s file, communicate with clients, refund an unearned fee, obey a court order, obey the law or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he improperly withdrew from a case.June 7, 2000 JOSEPH TRENK [#101459], 45, of Van Nuys was suspended for two years, stayed, and was placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and until he attends ethics school and completes six MCLE hours in law practice management and six hours in legal ethics. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955, and if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect June 7, 2000. Trenk failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1997 public reproval — he submitted four quarterly probation reports late and he did not attend ethics school or complete six hours each of MCLE courses in ethics and law office management.Trenk has two prior records of discipline. The public reproval was based on a failure to perform, return the client’s file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In a 1998 case, he mishandled four client matters by failing to perform or communicate with clients and in one instance, he failed to obey a court order. The court gave some mitigating weight to Trenk’s family circumstances, which include his wife’s multiple sclerosis and his father’s two bypass surgeries, and to the fact that he complied with probation conditions either in part or late. The bar court also conceded that part of the discipline order may have been confusing. |