Bruce Gary Fagel is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 10th June 1982. Bruce graduated from Whittier Coll SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameBruce Gary Fagel
First Admitted10 June 1982 (41 years, 10 months ago)
StatusActive
Bar Number103674

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number310-516-9035
Fax Number310-928-7763

Schools

Law SchoolWhittier Coll SOL (CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of Illinois (IL)

Address

Current AddressLaw Ofc Bruce G Fagel & Associates, 9200 W Sunset Blvd Ste 670
West Hollywood, CA 90069-3610
Map
Previous AddressLaw Ofc Bruce G Fagel & Associates
100 N Crescent Dr #360
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Previous AddressLaw Ofc Bruce G Fagel & Associates, 100 N Crescent Dr #360
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

History

30 September 2001Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-17475 (22 years, 6 months ago)
1 March 2000Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-17475 (24 years, 1 month ago)
10 June 1982Admitted to the State Bar of California (41 years, 10 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

September 30, 2001

BRUCE GARY FAGEL [#103674], 55, of Beverly Hills was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on four years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Sept. 30, 2001.

Fagel stipulated that he misled the court during the course of a medical malpractice case stemming from alleged negligence during the birth of a child. The child’s father agreed to settle the case for $1.35 million, but the mother, who was the child’s legal guardian, did not.

Fagel then sent the couple a petition which required both of their signatures, as well as a proposed disbursement of settlement funds in which he listed estimates of costs for which he had not received final billings. The couple did not return either document.

Nonetheless, Fagel submitted a petition to court, bearing his signature, and told the court he would submit an original with the required signatures prior to a hearing. The petition asked the court to approve a settlement purportedly reached between his clients and the defendant. Fagel filed the petition without his clients’ knowledge, and he lacked standing to do so.

In a supporting declaration, he estimated costs in the case at more than $15,000, although the actual costs to that date were about $1,500. He did not make clear to the court that the higher amount was an estimate for other experts still reviewing the case.

When the clients said they did not accept the settlement, Fagel scheduled a settlement conference with a private judge, although he did not have the clients’ authority to do so. Despite some changes in the proposed settlement, including an offer by Fagel to reduce his fee by $50,000, the clients again rejected the settlement.

The clients terminated Fagel. A short time later, he petitioned the court to have an independent guardian appointed for the child to provide an independent evaluation of the settlement. Fagel based the request on a claimed conflict of interest between the parties and various counsel. In fact, the only conflict was between him and his clients. He lacked standing to seek an independent guardian and the court denied the petition.

The case eventually was settled over the objections of the child’s mother.

In mitigation, Fagel has no record of discipline, the clients were not harmed and he provided character witnesses. He also undertook remedial actions to improve client communications.