Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
10 October 2001 | Disbarred (23 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 00-N-14878 |
---|---|
12 May 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 00-N-14878 |
11 May 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12313 (24 years, 1 month ago) |
19 March 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-N-14878 |
1 March 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 98-O-03755 |
1 February 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-N-14878 (24 years, 4 months ago) |
1 December 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 98-O-03755 (24 years, 6 months ago) |
1 April 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-PM-12894 |
1 April 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-PM-12894 |
6 August 1999 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 96-O-00898 (25 years, 10 months ago) |
16 October 1998 | Active (26 years, 8 months ago) |
26 June 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 12 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-00898 |
24 April 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-00898 (27 years, 2 months ago) |
3 December 1982 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years, 6 months ago) |
October 10, 2001 MICHAEL NEWTON ALEXANDER [#105279], 45, of Rancho Cucamonga was disbarred Oct. 10, 2001, and ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Alexander did not meet a disciplinary requirement that he comply with rule 955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties that he was suspended from practice and then filing an affidavit to that effect with the Supreme Court. He did not file the affidavit.He was suspended in 2000 for violating the terms of an August 1999 disciplinary order. In that matter, he failed to keep a client informed of significant events, did not respond to anotherclient’s inquiries, and failed to properly withdraw from a case, account for funds, perform legal services competently, promptly return a client’s file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.His probation was revoked because he didn’t comply with probation requirements.In recommending Alexander’s disbarment, Judge Robert Talcott wrote, “Respondent has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys, although he has been given several opportunities to do so.â€July 2, 2000 The probation of MICHAEL NEWTON ALEXANDER [#105279], 44, of Rancho Cucamonga was revoked, the previously ordered stay of suspension was lifted, he was suspended for one year and until he proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit toward the suspension shall be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began April 1, 2000. The order took effect July 2, 2000. Alexander was disciplined in August 1999, but failed to comply with the conditions of his probation.That discipline resulted from Alexander’s failure to keep a client informed of significant events and not responding to another client’s inquiries, and for failing to properly withdraw from a case, account for funds, perform legal services competently, promptly return a client’s file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.Among the conditions of probation he did not meet were requirements that he submit quarterly probation reports, submit a law office organization plan and submit declarations regarding three clients. He was to provide an accounting to one client and submit the matter for arbitration if the client disputed the accounting, he was to pay a $1,500 judgment in another case, and in the third matter, he was to resolve the underlying issues in a lawsuit filed against him.August 6, 1999 MICHAEL NEWTON ALEXANDER [#105279], 43, of Rancho Cucamonga was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on one year of probation, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 6, 1999. Alexander stipulated to misconduct in five consolidated cases, most relating to his failure to pursue cases.He did not keep clients reasonably informed of developments in their cases, perform legal services competently, release client papers, account for legal fees, return unearned fees or cooperate with the bar's investigation. He also withdrew from employment improperly.In mitigation, Alexander experienced serious personal problems during the time of the misconduct. |