Dennis Raymond Smeal is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 9th May 1983. Dennis graduated from USC Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Dennis Raymond Smeal |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 9 May 1983 (42 years ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 107762 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 323-545-7791 |
Schools
| Law School | USC Law School (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Claremont McKenna Coll (Claremont CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers Inc., 901 Corporate Center Dr, Ste 520 Monterey Park, CA 91754-7625 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 8 April 2004 | Probation with conditions 02-H-15964 (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|---|---|
| 25 December 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 02-H-15964 |
| 19 April 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years ago) Ordered inactive 02-H-15964 |
| 13 February 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-H-15964 (22 years, 3 months ago) |
| 14 October 2001 | Private reproval, public disclosure 99-O-13669 (23 years, 7 months ago) |
| 26 September 2001 | Active (23 years, 7 months ago) |
| 26 August 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-13669 |
| 11 May 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-13669 (24 years ago) |
| 9 May 1983 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 25, 2003 DENNIS RAYMOND SMEAL [#107762], 46, of Toluca Lake was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Dec. 25, 2003. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Smeal did not comply with the conditions of a reproval. He did not file four quarterly probation reports or submit proof that he completed ethics school or took the MPRE. The reproval was issued for failing to inform one client of significant developments in the case and for failing to respond to a second client’s status inquiries. |