Los Angeles, CA 90045
13 September 2013 | Disbarred (11 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 11-O-10454 |
---|---|
31 March 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 11-O-10454 |
29 October 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 08-O-10896 |
31 August 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-14622 (12 years, 9 months ago) |
17 December 2011 | Active (13 years, 5 months ago) |
14 December 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-O-13784 (13 years, 5 months ago) |
7 October 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-O-10454 (13 years, 7 months ago) |
17 September 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-O-10896 |
18 June 2003 | Private reproval, public disclosure 02-O-11413 (21 years, 11 months ago) |
10 February 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-11413 (22 years, 3 months ago) |
11 December 1989 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (35 years, 5 months ago) |
September 13, 2013 MICHAEL IAN BERRY [#141993], 51, of Los Angeles, was disbarred Sept. 13, 2013 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to pay restitution. Berry initially stipulated to 15 counts of professional misconduct in five client matters, but the California Supreme Court returned the matter to the State Bar for further consideration as to the appropriate level of discipline. Berry was separately charged with violating the conditions of his disciplinary probation.In concluding that Berry’s misconduct warranted disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Donald F. Miles noted that there were no compelling mitigating circumstances.“Instead, there is a track record of repeated violations by Respondent of his professional obligations, to the detriment of the public. Worse, Respondent has now demonstrated an overwhelming and ongoing indifference to the disciplinary process,†Miles wrote. “In sum, it is clear that strong steps must be taken to protect the public from future professional misconduct on his part.â€Berry’s misconduct included: improper withdrawal from employment; failure to render appropriate accounts, to cooperate with a State Bar investigation, perform legal services with competence, return unearned fees or to communicate.In one of the matters Berry was disciplined for, he represented a man arrested on drug charges but failed to appear at one of his pretrial hearings, causing a judge to revoke the man’s bail and issue a bench warrant for his arrest. The client and his sister left numerous phone messages for Berry demanding a refund, but he never returned their calls or the money.Berry also separately represented two sets of homeowners who claimed the same man had fraudulently obtained the titles to their homes. Berry charged one set of homeowners $3,000 and the other $3,400, but never completed any work on their cases and did not refund the unearned fees.Berry was ordered to pay $9,000 plus interest in restitution.Berry had two prior records of discipline. The first was a private reproval for failing to perform services and to promptly return client files. The second was a suspension for misconduct in four client matters, including failing to obey court orders, perform services, communicate, refund unearned fees, report court sanctions or to promptly return client files.September 17, 2011 MICHAEL IAN BERRY, 49, of Los Angeles was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Sept. 17, 2011. Berry stipulated to 11 counts of misconduct in four matters.One matter was dismissed for his failure to prosecute, although the dismissal was set aside when Berry said it was his mistake and the file was misplaced. He incorrectly blamed the court’s file clerk for assigning two different case numbers to the matter and was ordered to pay $650 to the opposing counsel.A claim for damages Berry filed with a school district was defective, and was rejected even after he submitted a corrected version. He then filed suit one day after the statute of limitations expired. The matter was dismissed, but he did not inform his client, nor did he return the client file as requested.Berry abandoned another client’s annulment and did not return her file or refund unearned fees, and did not file an opening brief, despite two time extensions, for a client who was pursuing a criminal appeal. He was sanctioned $2,000, but neither paid the sanction nor reported it to the bar. He did not refund any of the $18,500 advance fee.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and scaled back his civil law practice, concentrating on handling a manageable caseload of criminal defense.Berry was privately reproved in 2003 for failing to perform legal services competently or release a client file. |