Dale Kapp Nees was admitted to the California Bar 17th June 1987, but has since been disbarred. Dale graduated from McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Dale Kapp Nees |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 17 June 1987 (38 years ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 127943 |
Contact
| Phone Number | (916) 967-5771 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
Address
| Current Address | 6620 Madison Ave #A Carmichael, CA 95608 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 15 November 1997 | Disbarred (27 years, 7 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 12 August 1996 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (28 years, 10 months ago) |
| 23 May 1995 | Active (30 years, 1 month ago) |
| 19 July 1993 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (31 years, 11 months ago) |
| 17 June 1987 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (38 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 15, 1997 DALE KAPP NEES [#127943], 37, of Carmichael was disbarred Nov. 15, 1997, and ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. Under a November 1996 disciplinary order, Nees was required to comply with rule 955 by notifying all clients and other pertinent parties that he was suspended from practice and to submit an affidavit to that effect to the Supreme Court.His failure to do so led to the disbarment.Nees’ discipline was the result of failure to communicate and perform legal services for an incarcerated client, return about $7,000 in unearned advanced legal fees in the matter, and cooperate with the State Bar's investigation.Nees was admitted to the bar in 1986.September 12, 1996 DALE K. NEES [#127943], 36, of Carmichael was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for two years, with an actual suspension of six months and until he has made restitution. If he remains actually suspended for two years or more, he will remain suspended until he has shown proof of his fitness to practice law. He also was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order was effective Sept. 12, 1996. This review decision marks the first summary review proceeding decided under rule 308, which was part of the recent overhaul of the State Bar discipline system. Rule 308 was designed to streamline and reduce the costs of reviewing bar disciplinary cases.Among matters eligible for review are those raising issues concerning the appropriate degree of discipline and those without dispute over the hearing judge's material findings of fact.In this review decision, Nees was found culpable of two instances of misconduct. A bar court hearing judge originally gave Nees a 30-day actual suspension, but the review department increased it to two years. "We decide that greater actual suspension is appropriate based on [Nees'] protracted failure to perform legal services for an incarcerated client and his failure to return any of the sizeable unearned, advanced legal fees," wrote the review judge.In 1991, Nees was employed by a client sentenced to a lengthy federal prison term, to seek a writ of habeas corpus. Nees did not provide a written agreement to the client, but asked for a $10,000 retainer. The clients' relatives paid Nees $7,000.Nees then told the client he was pursuing the case and promised a memorandum, which he never provided. A few months later he told the client he had received his trial transcripts, which cost about $6,500.The client's relatives unsuccessfully attempted to talk to Nees for nearly a year and the client eventually demanded a return of his files and unearned fees. Nees never replied.The client later discovered Nees was in Hawaii and his file was in the California apartment of Nees' friend. The client contacted Nees in Hawaii, who assured him that he had taken the trial transcripts with him to work on. When confronted with the truth, Nees admitted that he had not started on the petition and it would be four to six months before he could complete it.The client again demanded the return of his file and arranged for it to be picked up in Nees' Sacramento office. However, the file could not be found. The client also demanded a refund of his fees, which Nees claimed were $6,000 rather than $7,000. As of October 1994, the client had received neither his file nor a refund of his fees and the client was financially unable to hire another lawyer to pursue his case.The review judge agreed with the overall weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors, but considered Nees' abandonment of the habeas corpus petition of a prisoner more serious than acknowledged by the bar's hearing judge. "Clients who are incarcerated, even if they have friends or relatives outside of prison to act as intermediaries with the attorney, are necessarily limited in their ability to assist the attorney or to stay appraised of the attorney's efforts," wrote the review judge. |