Seattle, WA 98101
30 August 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 9 months ago) Disbarment 05-N-04411 |
---|---|
30 December 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-N-04411 |
1 December 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-N-04411 (19 years, 6 months ago) |
10 July 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-PM-14187 |
5 July 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 11 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 02-H-11395 |
17 April 2003 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 02-H-11395 (22 years, 2 months ago) |
22 May 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-H-11395 (23 years, 1 month ago) |
25 April 1996 | Active (29 years, 2 months ago) |
1 January 1992 | Inactive (33 years, 5 months ago) |
12 December 1983 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (41 years, 6 months ago) |
August 30, 2008 GREGORY DEAN ESAU [#111487], 52, of Seattle was disbarred Aug. 30, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. The disbarment is the final act in a relatively minor disciplinary history that began in 1996 when Esau failed to return a $1,700 advance fee to a client who fired him. The client sued and obtained a judgment for $1,751 that Esau paid. However, the matter went to the Washington bar’s disciplinary board, which ordered that Esau be publicly reprimanded.As a result, the California bar filed charges against Esau that resulted in a private reproval and probation. Esau violated his probation conditions, beginning an escalation of the discipline imposed on him. The reproval period was extended by one year, Esau received a six-month stayed suspension and two years’ probation, his probation was revoked and he received a six-month actual suspension. The State Bar ultimately sought disbarment as a result of Esau’s history of probation violations.“This matter illustrates the serious consequences of an attorney’s extended inattention to State Bar disciplinary proceedings and his repeated disregard of Supreme Court orders,†wrote review Judge Judith Epstein for a three-judge panel. The panel rejected a hearing judge’s finding that Esau’s alcoholism played a part in his misconduct and it did not give great weight to the three character witnesses who testified on his behalf.Although Epstein acknowledged that the initial misconduct did not result in serious discipline, nor were any clients harmed, she wrote, “We could find no case imposing a sanction less than disbarment for an attorney who repeatedly has been called to account in disciplinary proceedings for violating conditions of probation, while at the same time violating court orders requiring compliance with rule 9.20.â€July 10, 2005 GREGORY D. ESAU [#111487], 49, of Seattle Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for six months and ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 10, 2005. Esau did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2003 discipline — he failed to submit four quarterly probation reports or report a change of address and phone number to the bar.The 2003 discipline was imposed for similar misconduct — Esau failed to comply with the probation conditions of a 2001 private reproval by not submitting quarterly reports, completing three hours of MCLE or taking the MPRE.He originally stipulated to a reprimand in the state of Washington for failing to place funds in a client trust account, maintain records of client funds, promptly pay out client funds or properly terminate employment.April 17, 2003 GREGORY DEAN ESAU [#111487], 47, of Bellevue, Washington was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 17, 2003. Esau stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2001 private reproval. He did not submit four quarterly reports, complete three hours of MCLE or take the MPRE.The discipline was imposed after Esau stipulated to a reprimand in the state of Washington for failing to place funds in a client trust account, maintain records of client funds, promptly pay out client funds or properly terminate employment. |