Charles Reginald Wear was admitted to the California Bar 5th February 1982, but has since been disbarred. Charles graduated from Western State University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Charles Reginald Wear |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 5 February 1982 (42 years, 2 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 102381 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 951-251-2048 |
| Fax Number | 877-852-5478 |
Schools
| Law School | Western State University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Western State University (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Charles R. Wear, Attorney at Law, 1190 Laguna Seca Ct Banning, CA 92220-5359 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | Charles R. Wear, Attorney at Law 27381 Cottonwood Ave Moreno Valley, CA 92555 |
| Previous Address | Charles R. Wear, Attorney at Law, 27381 Cottonwood Ave Moreno Valley, CA 92555 |
History
| 15 November 2015 | Disbarred (8 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 13-N-17479 |
|---|---|
| 30 May 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 13-N-17479 |
| 1 July 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 28 June 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 13-N-17479 |
| 11 April 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-N-17479 (10 years ago) |
| 29 March 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 13-PM-16064 |
| 5 December 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 13-PM-16064 |
| 27 September 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 12-O-12506 |
| 23 September 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 11-O-15087 |
| 17 August 2012 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 11-O-15087 (11 years, 8 months ago) |
| 5 February 1982 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years, 2 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 15, 2015 CHARLES REGINALD WEAR [#102381], 66, of Moreno Valley, was disbarred Nov. 15, 2015 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Wear did not respond to charges that he failed to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and his default was entered. Because he did not seek to have the default set aside or vacated within 180 days, he was disbarred and the charges deemed admitted.Wear had three prior records of discipline. In July 2012, he was suspended for failing to promptly refund unearned fees, promptly refund advanced costs or cooperate in a State Bar disciplinary investigation. In August 2013, he was suspended for improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to competently perform legal services, adequately communicate with the client or cooperate in a State Bar disciplinary investigation. In February 2014, his probation was revoked for failing to comply with two of the terms of his disciplinary probation.March 29, 2014 CHARLES REGINALD WEAR [#102381], 64, of Moreno Valley was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years’ probation with an actual one-year suspension and ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect March 29, 2014. Wear’s probation was revoked after he violated the conditions of a 2012 disciplinary order by failing to provide the Office of Probation with proof that he had attended or passed either the State Bar’s Ethics School or its Client Trust Accounting School by the deadline.He has two prior records of discipline. In the matter that led to his present discipline, he stipulated to culpability in a single client matter for failing to return unearned fees, promptly pay out client funds at the client’s direction or cooperate with a State Bar investigation. In 2013, he stipulated to culpability in a single client matter for: improperly withdrawing from legal services upon termination of employment and failing to competently perform legal services, keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments or cooperate with the State Bar regarding a disciplinary investigation.September 27, 2013 CHARLES REGINALD WEAR [#102381], 64, of Moreno Valley, was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years’ probation with an actual one-year suspension and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Sept. 27, 2013. Wear stipulated to misconduct in one client matter, including failures to perform legal services with competence, take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, keep a client reasonably informed of significant developments or cooperate or participate in a State Bar investigation.Wear’s misconduct arose out of a bankruptcy matter he handled for a client. Among other missteps, Wear repeatedly failed to provide the opposing attorney with his client’s responses to a list of questions related to the discovery process and did not inform his client that he failed to provide her responses to the attorney. He also did not advise his client to look for additional documents to produce in preparation for a deposition. Wear’s misconduct resulted in a judge imposing $12,012.50 in sanctions against the client.In mitigation, Wear entered into a stipulation with the State Bar, saving time and resources, and was suffering from anxiety, depression and insomnia at the time of his misconduct, stemming in part from the unexpected death of his wife.August 17, 2012 CHARLES REGINALD WEAR, 62, of Moreno Valley was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2012. Wear stipulated to three counts of misconduct in a bankruptcy matter that he agreed to handle for a $2,000 fee. Ten months later he terminated his employment, with a promise to refund the fee, because he was ill. When no money was forthcoming, the client complained to the bar and Wear refunded $1,399.He emailed the investigator stating, the client “has received a refund of her money. Can this suffice for this case?†The investigator told Wear he had to submit a written response to the complaint as well as support documents, but he didn’t do so.He stipulated that he failed to promptly refund unearned fees or pay out client funds and he did not cooperate with the bar’s investigation.In mitigation, Wear had no prior discipline and had family problems and severe financial stress that led to emotional difficulties. |