Stockton, CA 95202
28 June 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 11 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-10206 |
---|---|
25 January 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10206 |
30 June 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10206 |
27 February 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-10206 (18 years, 3 months ago) |
11 August 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-01687 |
11 November 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-O-01687 |
20 September 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-01687 (19 years, 9 months ago) |
10 December 1985 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (39 years, 6 months ago) |
June 28, 2008 ROBERT BRETT NESIN [#119368], 55, of Stockton was disbarred June 28, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Nesin violated rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, since renumbered as rule 9.20, by failing to submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, courts and other interested parties of his 2006 suspension. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.In the underlying matter, he was suspended for failing to perform services competently and communicate with clients and for committing acts of dishonesty in two matters.He did not participate in the disbarment proceedings.August 11, 2006 ROBERT B. NESIN [#119368], 53, of Stockton was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 11, 2006. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Nesin failed to perform legal services competently or communicate with clients, and that his actions involved moral turpitude.He received a $7,500 settlement check on behalf of his client in a personal injury case, but never cashed the check or told his client about it. The check expired. Soon after he received the check, his client’s previous attorney inquired about the case and requested payment of a $2,072 lien for professional services. Nesin did not respond to two letters or pay the lien. He also never returned any of his client’s phone calls or disbursed any money to him.Another client retained Nesin to file a breach of contract case. He never filed the case, but told his client he had. The client learned the truth when she went to the courthouse. Nesin also told a bar investigator he filed the case. He later reimbursed the client for his fee plus $1,000.Although Nesin’s default was entered, the court considered his 20 years of practice without discipline as a mitigating circumstance. |