Julie Lynn Wolff was admitted to the California Bar 11th December 1989, but has since been disbarred. Julie graduated from McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Julie Lynn Wolff |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 11 December 1989 (35 years, 6 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 142531 |
Contact
| Phone Number | (916) 451-6443 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
Address
| Current Address | Law Ofc Julie Lynn Wolff 777 Campus Commons Rd #200 Sacramento, CA 95825 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 14 August 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 14 June 2007 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (18 years ago) |
| 11 December 1989 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (35 years, 6 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
August 14, 2008 JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 53, of Sacramento was disbarred Aug. 14, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Wolff did not comply with an earlier order rule 9.20 requirement: she did not submit to the court an affidavit attesting that she notified her clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of her suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.Wolff was suspended in June 2007 for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters as a result of her belief that she did not have to follow the orders and rules of the Sacramento Superior Court.She subsequently was suspended later the same year for failing to promptly return her client’s file and failing to respond to her client’s reasonable status inquiries.In recommending Wolff’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, she “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although she has been given opportunities to do so.â€September 9, 2007 JULIE L. WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for 18 months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Sept. 9, 2007. The State Bar Court found that in a marital dissolution, Wolff failed to communicate with a client or return the client’s file when requested. She represented the husband who, with his wife, had started the dissolution by working with a mediation counselor. She met only once with her client. In three letters, the wife’s attorney asked Wolff to respond to edits made to the marital settlement agreement that had been drafted by the mediation counselor, but she never responded. She also did not respond to her client’s phone calls or to a letter in which he expressed his frustration at her lack of communication. He hired a new lawyer, who asked Wolff to provide the file and to refund the client’s $4,000 advance fee. Wolff refunded the money. In mitigation, Wolff presented testimony about her pro bono and community service. She was disciplined in 2006 for failing to inform clients about significant developments in their cases, perform legal services competently or obey a court order and she withdrew from employment without court permission and without protecting her clients’ interests.June 14, 2007 JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect June 14, 2007. The State Bar Court’s review department, on appeal by both Wolff and bar prosecutors, increased a hearing judge’s recommendation that Wolff be publicly reproved for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters.“This case presents an instance where, during a one-month period, an attorney lost her ethical footing,†wrote review Judge Judith Epstein.Wolff’s problems occurred in 1999, when the presiding judge of the Sacramento juvenile court reorganized the Indigent Defense Program (IDP), through which Wolff represented parents and sometimes children in dependency matters. When a contract to handle all IDP matters was awarded to another law firm, Wolff was the attorney of record for more than 300 clients.She submitted a document to the court entitled, “In re: All My Cases,†which she said was intended to serve as her resignation for 319 pending dependency matters. She did not notify her clients that she was withdrawing and would not appear at their upcoming hearings.The judge ordered the document returned to Wolff because he said it was not a proper motion to withdraw, did not request a hearing date and did not indicate that any client had been served. The document also did not identify the cases by name or case number so the judge had no way to determine which matters were affected by her actions.Nonetheless, Wolff stopped making appearances for all IDP cases for which she was attorney of record and returned her files to the program administrator, believing the cases would be reassigned.The judge disagreed, saying only the court had the authority to relieve an attorney of record.When she failed to make 39 appearances, Wolff’s “absence did not go unnoticed by the court,†Epstein wrote, “as her failure to make scheduled appearances disrupted court proceedings, caused continuances and resulted in some indigents appearing in court unrepresented.â€Wolff was sanctioned $1,500.The bar court found that Wolff failed to obey a court order, withdrew from employment without the court’s permission and without taking steps to protect her clients’ interests and she failed to inform her clients of significant developments in their cases.June 14, 2007 JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect June 14, 2007. The State Bar Court’s review department, on appeal by both Wolff and bar prosecutors, increased a hearing judge’s recommendation that Wolff be publicly reproved for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters.“This case presents an instance where, during a one-month period, an attorney lost her ethical footing,†wrote review Judge Judith Epstein.Wolff’s problems occurred in 1999, when the presiding judge of the Sacramento juvenile court reorganized the Indigent Defense Program (IDP), through which Wolff represented parents and sometimes children in dependency matters. When a contract to handle all IDP matters was awarded to another law firm, Wolff was the attorney of record for more than 300 clients.She submitted a document to the court entitled, “In re: All My Cases,†which she said was intended to serve as her resignation for 319 pending dependency matters. She did not notify her clients that she was withdrawing and would not appear at their upcoming hearings.The judge ordered the document returned to Wolff because he said it was not a proper motion to withdraw, did not request a hearing date and did not indicate that any client had been served. The document also did not identify the cases by name or case number so the judge had no way to determine which matters were affected by her actions.Nonetheless, Wolff stopped making appearances for all IDP cases for which she was attorney of record and returned her files to the program administrator, believing the cases would be reassigned.The judge disagreed, saying only the court had the authority to relieve an attorney of record.When she failed to make 39 appearances, Wolff’s “absence did not go unnoticed by the court,†Epstein wrote, “as her failure to make scheduled appearances disrupted court proceedings, caused continuances and resulted in some indigents appearing in court unrepresented.â€Wolff was sanctioned $1,500.The bar court found that Wolff failed to obey a court order, withdrew from employment without the court’s permission and without taking steps to protect her clients’ interests and she failed to inform her clients of significant developments in their cases. |