Richard Mirasol Chiu was admitted to the California Bar 15th December 1989, but has since been disbarred.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Richard Mirasol Chiu |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 15 December 1989 (34 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 145258 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 713-977-9888 |
| Fax Number | 713-977-0630 |
School
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
|---|
Address
| Current Address | Law Ofc Richard Chiu, 6161 Savoy Dr #800 Houston, TX 77036 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 25 November 2010 | Disbarred (13 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 09-J-10858 |
|---|---|
| 25 June 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 09-J-10858 |
| 6 March 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 09-J-10858 |
| 1 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 15 December 1989 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (34 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 25, 2010 RICHARD MIRASOL CHIU [#145258], 50, of Houston was disbarred Nov. 25, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Chiu misappropriated almost $1,800 from a client in Texas. The funds were to have paid for the medical expenses of two personal injury clients. State Bar Court Judge Richard Platel wrote, “This court concludes that, under California law, the appropriate level of discipline for the misconduct established in this proceeding is disbarment, which is the same discipline that Texas imposed on respondent for the same misconduct.â€Chiu represented a couple in a personal injury case, but did not pay their physician. Although he sent two checks, both bounced because they were written against a closed account. Two of three new checks, written against insufficient funds, also bounced.There is nothing in the record, Platel wrote, “that suggests, much less establishes, a compelling reason for this court to recommend something other than disbarment.†|