Te Jung Chang was admitted to the California Bar 11th June 1990, but has since been disbarred. Te graduated from Golden Gate University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Te Jung Chang |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 11 June 1990 (34 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 147088 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 510-869-4326 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Golden Gate University SOL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Berkeley (Berkeley CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 1700 Shattuck Ave #185 Berkeley, CA 94709 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 18 February 2011 | Disbarred (14 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 10-N-01789 |
|---|---|
| 18 September 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 10-N-01789 |
| 30 May 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 10-N-01789 |
| 5 November 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-13891 |
| 1 January 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-13891 |
| 1 February 2000 | Active (25 years, 3 months ago) |
| 1 January 1998 | Inactive (27 years, 4 months ago) |
| 10 November 1994 | Active (30 years, 6 months ago) |
| 1 January 1994 | Inactive (31 years, 4 months ago) |
| 11 June 1990 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (34 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 5, 2009 TE JUNG CHANG [#147088], 47, of Berkeley was suspended for two years, stayed, and actually suspended for 90 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. She was ordered to make restitution, pay court-ordered sanctions, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, Chang must prove her rehabilitation. The order took effect Nov. 5, 2009. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Chang committed five acts of misconduct. The matter began when Chang hired attorney Justin Schwartz, a friend from high school, to represent her in a personal injury matter arising from a traffic accident. When Chang would not authorize a settlement, Schwartz withdrew.Thus began five years of litigation in which Chang charged Schwartz with legal malpractice, repeatedly tried to have a superior court judge disqualified, and unsuccessfully turned to the court of appeal.Schwartz billed Chang for $1,156 in attorney’s fees; “recorded†a lien on Chang’s lawsuit against the other party in the auto accident, and notified the insurance carrier of his lien. He provided a copy of his fee agreement with Chang.Chang then sued Schwartz for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, but before he was served, she filed a first amended complaint. She didn’t serve Schwartz for more than four months.Early on, Chang objected to the superior court’s jurisdiction, which Judge Judith D. Ford rejected, along with Chang’s motion to have Schwartz’ default entered. When Schwartz filed an answer in the malpractice lawsuit, he also filed a cross-complaint against Chang. Because she didn’t answer, her default was entered. She later sent Schwartz a letter claiming that his discovery requests and notice of her deposition were not valid and refusing to recognize the requests.During a hearing in which Ford ordered Chang to provide discovery, appear for a deposition and pay sanctions of $320 plus $170, Chang repeated her claim that the court lacked jurisdiction. After the hearing, she continued to argue with Ford and had to be escorted out of the courtroom by the bailiff. She later sent a letter to the judge, accusing her of bias and legal error and asking her to withdraw. Ford formally responded that she was not biased, and Judge Franklin Taft, sitting on assignment, agreed that Ford should not be disqualified.Chang then wrote a second letter, accusing Ford of committing perjury and having ex parte communications with Schwartz. The letter was returned by the court clerk, who advised Chang it was improper to try to communicate with the judge.The court eventually entered a judgment against Chang and awarded Schwartz $409.In a third attempt to have Ford disqualified, Chang accused the judge of acting unethically and wrote that the judge “by means of physical impairment (arising from mental shock manifesting as a physical symptom) makes her unable to properly perceive the evidence or unable to properly conduct the proceedings in this case before her.†She also accused Taft of bias, fraud and refusing to perform his judicial duties.When Chang filed a second appeal, the court of appeal warned her to limit the issues or be subject to sanctions. Instead, she raised issues that the court had said were not part of the second appeal, presenting a voluminous record and a lengthy brief consisting almost entirely of arguments attacking the judgment of the appellate court. The court imposed a $1,500 sanction.The State Bar Court found that Chang failed to maintain a just action, citing her meritless contention that the superior court lacked jurisdiction as well as repeatedly filing baseless, frivolous and false statements of disqualification against Judge Ford. The court also found that Chang failed to report sanctions, obey court orders or maintain respect for judicial officers, and she committed acts of moral turpitude by engaging in what the court called her abusive conduct towards Judge Ford.Chang has not paid either the $409 to Schwartz or the $1,500 sanction. |