Rodolfo Enriquez Petilla was admitted to the California Bar 12th December 1983, but is now resigned. Rodolfo graduated from Armstrong Coll.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Rodolfo Enriquez Petilla |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 12 December 1983 (41 years, 6 months ago) |
| Status | Resigned |
| Bar Number | 109383 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 559-252-2259 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Armstrong Coll (Berkeley CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
Address
| Current Address | 280 N Bundy Ave Fresno, CA 93727 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 19 November 2004 | Resigned (20 years, 7 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 04-Q-13889 |
|---|---|
| 24 August 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 10 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 04-Q-13889 |
| 6 February 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 01-O-05384 |
| 17 April 2003 | Active (22 years, 2 months ago) |
| 17 January 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 5 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 96-O-05725 |
| 13 September 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-05384 (22 years, 9 months ago) |
| 8 January 2002 | Active (23 years, 5 months ago) |
| 9 November 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-O-05725 |
| 27 May 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-05725 (26 years ago) |
| 12 December 1983 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (41 years, 6 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
February 6, 2004 RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ PETILLA [#109383], 64, of Fresno was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 6, 2004. Prior to being placed on disciplinary suspension in 2001, Petilla was contacted by a couple to represent their 16-year-old son in a juvenile proceeding. When he told them he could not accept the case, the woman became despondent and begged Petilla to reconsider. He then accepted the case, but told the couple he could not work on it until after January 2002, although he did not tell them he was to be suspended from practice. He instructed the couple to seek a continuance of a scheduled hearing until after the date he would return to active practice. When the couple went to court, they learned that Petilla was suspended and were given time to find a new lawyer. Petilla returned their retainer fee and expressed remorse for not revealing his suspension.The couple testified that although they would not have hired him had they known about the suspension, they harbored no ill will toward Petilla.The State Bar Court found that he held himself out as entitled to practice when he could not and committed an act of moral turpitude by doing so.In mitigation, Petilla cooperated with the bar’s investigation, refunded his clients’ money and engages in community service.The earlier discipline was imposed for incurring more than $19,000 in credit card debt with no intention of paying his bills, an act of moral turpitude.November 9, 2001 RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ PETILLA [#109383], 61, of Fresno was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension, and was ordered to make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 9, 2001. The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings that in 1994, over a 37-day period, Petilla incurred credit card debts of almost $20,000 without intending to pay them. He wound up in debt by taking cash advances on two credit cards and gambling away the money. He filed for bankruptcy 16 days after the last cash advance.The hearing judge determined that Petilla borrowed money without intending to repay it, an act that involves dishonesty and moral turpitude.The review department rejected Petilla’s arguments that the evidence was insufficient to warrant discipline, that the judge’s decision was void because it was not timely and was not served on him, and that the restitution requirement was illegal. It reversed a recommendation that Petilla be required to attend Gamblers Anonymous meetings.When Petilla filed for bankruptcy, he attempted to discharge more than $57,000 in debt, most of it the result of gambling. He said the debt was incurred as part of a “free fall†at Nevada blackjack tables between late May and early July 1994. The review department described the free fall as “a losing streak during which he lost tens of thousands of dollars.â€During the previous 12 months, he repaid at least $114,611 in gambling debts.In addition to the $19,327 cash advances in question, Petilla also took $25,000 in gambling markers from three Nevada casinos and more than $11,000 in cash advances on two other credit cards. Those debts were either discharged or not challenged.The bankruptcy court found that Petilla engaged in fraud when he incurred the debts on the two credit cards in question, and an appellate court upheld its ruling.The bar court found unconvincing Petilla’s contention that he intended to repay the cash advances with his gambling winnings.In mitigation, Petilla practiced law for 16 years without any record of discipline. |