Karen Reed was admitted to the California Bar 14th June 1988, but has since been disbarred. Karen graduated from University of LaVerne COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Karen Reed |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 14 June 1988 (36 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 134022 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 310-553-8533 |
|---|
School
| Law School | University of LaVerne COL (Ontario CA) |
|---|
Address
| Current Address | 424 S Beverly Dr Beverly Hills, CA 90212 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 10 January 2003 | Disbarred (22 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 99-O-12214 |
|---|---|
| 12 July 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-12214 |
| 8 April 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-12214 |
| 24 March 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 01-O-04894 |
| 31 January 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12214 (23 years, 3 months ago) |
| 28 January 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-04894 (23 years, 3 months ago) |
| 23 November 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 5 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 94-O-17013 |
| 28 June 2000 | Active (24 years, 10 months ago) |
| 17 March 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 1 month ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-17013 |
| 14 May 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-17013 (26 years, 12 months ago) |
| 14 June 1988 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (36 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
January 10, 2003 KAREN REED [#134022], 52, of Beverly Hills was disbarred Jan. 10, 2003, and ordered to comply with rule 955. In two consolidated default matters, the State Bar Court found that Reed committed misconduct in two client cases, including failing to deposit client funds in a client trust account, perform services competently or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and she misappropriated client funds.In a personal injury case, she received $684 from her client to employ a forensic expert and to pay filing fees. Reed deposited the check in her personal checking account. She then called opposing counsel and said she had authority to settle the matter for $7,000, which was not true. She received a check for $7,000 which she deposited in her trust account.The balance in the account fell below the required amount repeatedly.In another matter, Reed was hired to obtain an investor visa from the INS, and deposited a $1,520 check for filing fees in her personal checking account. She sent the petition to the INS with a personal check for $1,320. Because the filing fee was $470, the petition and check were returned. Reed never resubmitted the petition.Reed personally filed for bankruptcy and when she filed the appropriate schedules, she omitted receivables for fees for several clients. She also did not identify pre-petition earnings to the trustee. Her actions amounted to material concealment of facts.Reed also was disciplined in 2000 for recklessly failing to control her law practice and her employees. As part of the order, she was to comply with rule 955 by notifying all clients, courts and other interested parties of her suspension and to submit an affidavit to the Supreme Court to that effect. She did not notify the client in the investor visa case that she was suspended, but she submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court stating that she had complied with rule 955.As part of that discipline, Reed also was required to take the MPRE. She falsely attested that she had done so, committing an act of moral turpitude.In recommending Reed's disbarment, Judge Pat McElroy stated that it was "necessary to protect the public, the courts and the legal community."March 17, 2000 KAREN REED [#134022], 50, of Beverly Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect March 17, 2000. According to a stipulation Reed reached with the State Bar, she entered into a business relationship with another attorney, Gilbert Geilim, in 1991, and acted as an employee, paid on a salary basis of $4,000 to $4,500 per month.She lent her name to Geilim in the operation of a personal injury practice and gave him and his employees control of two client trust accounts. Between 1991 and 1994, Reed made little or no effort to supervise the operation of the trust accounts or to oversee the actions taken in her name by Geilim and his staff.When she became aware of what she terms “suspicious activity,†she demanded the return of her trust account. When she received the account, she found a balance of about $110,000 but did not know what the funds represented or to whom they belonged. She did not sever her business relationship with Geilim until 1994.In 1991, three clients employed Reed to represent them in a personal injury matter. As a result of her failure to supervise Geilim or to oversee her client trust account, settlement drafts for the three were received, cashed and deposited without the clients’ or Reed’s knowledge, settlement proceeds were not promptly distributed to two clients, medical liens for the three were not honored and settlement funds were misappropriated.Reed’s conduct constituted gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude.In mitigation, she was involved in an acrimonious divorce at the time, she sought professional assistance for extreme emotional difficulties, she took steps to demonstrate remorse and she cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |