Salida, CA 95368-9282
27 January 2023 | Inactive (2 years, 3 months ago) |
---|---|
5 May 1996 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 90-C-17469 (29 years ago) |
24 November 1992 | Active (32 years, 6 months ago) |
6 January 1992 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (33 years, 4 months ago) Interim suspension after conviction 90-C-17469 |
2 December 1991 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 90-C-17469 (33 years, 6 months ago) |
3 June 1983 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years ago) |
May 5, 1996 THOMAS JOSEPH BURNS [#107910], 38, of Modesto was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years, and ordered to take the CPRE within one year. The order took effect May 5, 1996. The State Bar Court's review department, in its second review of Burns' case, increased the discipline recommended by the hearing judge, who had ordered only a private reproval with no conditions. Burns was convicted in 1991 for assault with a firearm with the enhancement that he discharged a firearm at an occupied car and caused great bodily injury to a passenger. The incident occurred in 1990 as Burns was driving home from his job as a reserve police officer. Another car pulled alongside his and the passenger leaned out and shattered Burns' window with a baseball bat. Believing he had been shot at, Burns took a legally registered handgun from his glove compartment and fired a single shot at the other car, striking the back seat passenger in the face. As a result, the passenger lost several teeth and part of her gum. When Burns' conviction was first referred to the bar court for discipline, the hearing judge dismissed the case. Bar prosecutors appealed, and the review department found Burns' actions involved misconduct warranting discipline and remanded the case for hearing. After the hearing judge recommended a private reproval without conditions, the bar trial counsel again appealed, leading to the latest recommendation. The review department agreed with bar attorneys that the hearing judge should not have admitted telephonic evidence of Burns' character, because it is important to observe the demeanor of character witnesses. Although Burns' numerous pro bono activities were considered "an extraordinary demonstration of good character," the review panel discounted other evidence the hearing judge had considered as mitigation. |