Pullman, WA 99163
22 March 2008 | Disbarred (17 years, 1 month ago) Disbarment 07-N-10224 |
---|---|
13 October 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10224 |
2 July 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10224 |
22 February 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-10224 (18 years, 2 months ago) |
18 May 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 12 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-11304 |
15 August 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 04-O-11304 |
4 April 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-11304 (20 years, 1 month ago) |
10 December 1985 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (39 years, 5 months ago) |
March 22, 2008 JOHN FREELAND WANVIG [#120390], 55, of Pullman, Wash. was disbarred March 22, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Wanvig failed to comply with rule 955 of the rules of court, since renumbered as rule 9.20. He did not timely file with the bar court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.In a 2006 default proceeding, the bar court found that Wanvig committed three acts of misconduct, including failing to perform legal services competently and making misrepresentations to his client.In recommending disbarment, Judge Donald F. Miles wrote that Wanvig “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given the opportunity to do so.â€May 18, 2006 JOHN FREELAND WANVIG [#120390], 54, of Garden Grove was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he 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 May 18, 2006. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Wanvig committed three acts of misconduct.His client won a judgment of about $10,000, but the sheriff’s department was unable to levy the defendant’s account. Wanvig took no further steps to obtain satisfaction of the judgment and did not inform his client that he collected no money. Instead, six months later, he told the client he collected the full amount.He eventually gave the client about $2,200, claiming the difference went toward legal fees.The court found that Wanvig failed to perform legal services competently and made misrepresentations to his client. |