Samuel Jaime Mendez was admitted to the California Bar 21st September 1988, but has since been disbarred. Samuel graduated from UCLA SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Samuel Jaime Mendez |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 21 September 1988 (35 years, 7 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 135549 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 323-581-2598 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | UCLA SOL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Santa Barbara (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 6728 Seville Ave Huntington Park, CA 90255 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 27 April 1996 | Disbarred (28 years ago) Disbarment 93-O-15730 |
|---|---|
| 8 December 1995 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (28 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 93-O-14645 |
| 3 March 1995 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-15730 (29 years, 2 months ago) |
| 23 January 1995 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 93-O-14645 |
| 30 September 1994 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-14645 (29 years, 7 months ago) |
| 29 August 1994 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 25 July 1994 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 9 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 21 September 1988 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (35 years, 7 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
April 27, 1996 SAMUEL J. MENDEZ [#135549], 39, of Huntington Park was disbarred April 27, 1996, and ordered to comply with Rule 955. The hearing department of the State Bar Court recommended Mendez' disbarment after finding him culpable of "extremely serious" misconduct which involved seven client matters, misappropriation of significant funds from three clients and the loss of causes of action to three additional clients due to his failure to perform services. In addition, Mendez was found culpable of misconduct in four other client matters during the same time period in a prior disciplinary proceeding. The hearing department also found that Mendez' failure to participate in either his disbarment proceeding or the earlier disciplinary proceeding demonstrated that he is "unwilling or unable to comply with the standards of conduct required of attorneys of this State." Mendez received settlement funds for three separate clients totalling $35,000, which he misappropriated. His failure to make restitution significantly harmed his clients. Mendez was admitted to the bar in 1988.December 8, 1995 SAMUEL JAIME MENDEZ [#135549], 39, of Huntington Park was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years on the condition that he actually be suspended for one year and until he has provided proof that he returned files to three clients or provided a statement, under penalty of perjury, of his efforts to locate the files. Should the period of actual suspension exceed two years, he will remain suspended until he has provided proof of his rehabilitation and learning and ability in the general law. He also was ordered to pass the CPRE and comply with Rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 8, 1995. In its decision, the hearing department of the State Bar Court found Mendez culpable of wilfully failing to perform services, communicate with and return files to clients, and he improperly withdrew from representation. He also threatened disciplinary action to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute, failed to cooperate with the bar's investigation and neglected to keep his address current with the bar's membership department. In one instance, Mendez was employed in 1992 to represent a client in a personal injury matter involving an auto accident. He failed to comply with local court rules, resulting in the dismissal of the case in March 1994. The client began experiencing problems in communicating with Mendez in April 1993 and at one point unsuccessfully tried to reach him eight times. He went to Mendez' office twice and left notes asking Mendez to contact him. On another visit the office was vacant. Eventually, the person who referred the client to Mendez called and told him that Mendez was no longer practicing law, would be working in Mexico and that Mendez would call him to arrange the return of his file. The client never received his file and hired another attorney who obtained a court order setting aside the dismissal of the client's case. Mendez' misconduct began only 17 months after he was admitted to the bar. Considered significant in the discipline decision was Mendez' indifference and abandonment, "clearly demonstrated by the fact that he, in essence, walked away from his practice, taking with him the clients' files." |