Valencia, CA 91355-1045
22 September 2006 | Active (17 years, 7 months ago) |
---|---|
18 September 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
17 September 2003 | Active (20 years, 7 months ago) |
16 September 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
19 August 2002 | Active (21 years, 8 months ago) |
20 June 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-14759 |
14 August 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-14759 (22 years, 8 months ago) |
1 March 2001 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-O-11926 (23 years, 2 months ago) |
20 June 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-11926 (23 years, 10 months ago) |
21 June 1999 | Active (24 years, 10 months ago) |
18 December 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 95-O-16885 |
6 February 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 97-O-15242 (26 years, 2 months ago) |
15 December 1997 | Active (26 years, 4 months ago) |
18 November 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-16885 (26 years, 5 months ago) |
8 November 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 5 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 93-O-18511 |
29 August 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 97-O-14175 (26 years, 8 months ago) |
11 October 1996 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 93-O-18511 (27 years, 6 months ago) |
12 July 1994 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-18511 (29 years, 9 months ago) |
2 October 1989 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (34 years, 7 months ago) |
June 20, 2002 BRETT L. FRANCISCO [#141745], 53, of North Hills was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and was ordered to make restitution and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 20, 2002. Francisco stipulated that he failed to promptly pay out client funds. He did not pay his clients their share of a $21,000 settlement for three months.Francisco has a prior record of discipline, including a six-month actual suspension for failing to report court-ordered sanctions to the State Bar. When he did not comply with probation conditions, his probation was extended for a year.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation and acted in good faith.March 1, 2001 The probation of BRETT L. FRANCISCO [#141745], 51, of North Hills was extended for one year, effective March 1, 2001. Francisco failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998 discipline issued in four consolidated cases: he did not submit three quarterly probation reports, complete six hours of MCLE or submit proof that he made restitution amounting to $1,500.The discipline was imposed for failure to perform legal services competently, preserve client funds in a trust account, pay court-ordered sanctions or comply with an earlier probation. Francisco also was disciplined in 1996 for failing to pay sanctions or report them to the State Bar.In mitigation, Francisco cooperated with the bar’s investigation and took steps to demonstrate his remorse.October 11, 1996 BRETT L. FRANCISCO [#141745], 47, of Santa Clarita was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on probation for two years, effective Oct. 11, 1996. He was ordered to pass the MPRE. In this decision, Francisco was found culpable of failing to pay court-ordered sanctions of $700 and $1,500. He also did not timely report the $1,500 sanction to the State Bar.No aggravating circumstances were established, but numerous mitigating factors were presented.Francisco's personal problems during this period were accorded moderate weight in mitigation, since they impacted his ability to pay the court-ordered sanctions.At the time, Francisco and his wife were separated and he sought treatment for depression and back problems which left numbness and pain in his arm. He also had a significant drop in income and was forced to borrow money to support his children.Since then, both his medical condition and marriage situation have improved.The bar found that although Francisco believed in good faith that he did not have to report the $1,500 sanction, he should have investigated the matter more thoroughly. |