Michael Jude O'Brien was first admitted to the California Bar 11th June 1990, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Michael graduated from Gonzaga University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameMichael Jude O'Brien
First Admitted11 June 1990 (33 years, 10 months ago)
StatusNot Eligible to Practice
Bar Number147414

Contact

Phone Number626-966-5663

Schools

Law SchoolGonzaga University SOL (Spokane WA)
Undergraduate SchoolMetropolitan St Coll (Denver CO)

Address

Current AddressPO Box 1409
Upland, CA 91785
Map

History

1 July 2014Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 9 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
20 September 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 7 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 10-O-11214
3 July 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 9 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
27 January 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 3 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-13150
11 June 1990Admitted to the State Bar of California (33 years, 10 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

September 20, 2012

MICHAEL JUDE O’BRIEN, 50, of Upland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Sept. 20, 2012.

O’Brien stipulated that he entered into an unfair transaction with a client who was concerned that he could not afford loan payments after an adjustable rate mortgage loan was reset. O’Brien said the clients would be relieved of further financial responsibility by selling their home for $1 to a company he and his sister were forming. The clients signed a fee agreement that transferred title of the home to O’Brien but left them legally responsible for the ARM loan.

About a year later, the clients’ lender contacted them about unpaid property taxes. Someone else now lives in the home and O’Brien and/or his sister receives a monthly rent of $1,400, which is used to pay the mortgage — $312.32/month — and insurance — $1,035/year.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. O’Brien was disciplined in January 2012 for failing to obey a court order and making false statements to a court “for corrupt motives.”

January 12, 2012

MICHAEL JUDE O’BRIEN [#147414], 49, of Upland was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual six-month suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Jan. 12, 2012.

State Bar Court Judge Richard A. Platel found that O’Brien committed misconduct in his divorce proceedings and said his testimony during a four-day trial was unbelievable. O’Brien was declared a vexatious litigant by a superior court judge eight years after the divorce proceedings began, and Platel said that his actions caused his ex-wife to spend an additional $100,000 to defend her side of the action.

Although O’Brien stipulated to the appointment of a special master in the divorce case, he claimed he had not done so after the special master issued a report that was unfavorable to him. He also filed an appeal from court order that he claimed had been issued before any orders were entered. Platel said O’Brien thus intentionally made false statements and sought to mislead judges “for the corrupt purpose of avoiding unfavorable rulings and staying the superior court proceeding in order to deprive that court of jurisdiction.”

The special master had found that O’Brien failed to comply with his ex-wife’s discovery requests. The court ordered O’Brien to pay sanctions of $41,000, later reducing that amount by $500. He had not produced tax returns for his real estate business or had provided documents that were disorganized and copied over other documents.

During a lunch break in the family law action, O’Brien appealed all pending orders so that he could then “take the position that the Superior Court had lost jurisdiction to conclude the hearing and that further trial court proceedings should be stayed.” The court continued the hearing anyway.

O’Brien unsuccessfully appealed the trial court’s rulings. The court of appeal found the appeal frivolous, called his lunch break appeal a “sophomoric stunt” and ordered O’Brien to pay his former wife sanctions of $23,712. The court ordered that its opinion be forwarded to the State Bar for discipline. O’Brien sought review of the appellate court’s findings with the Supreme Court, which denied his request.

As part of a custody case, the family court also ordered O’Brien to pay retroactive child support ranging from $1,118 a month to $1,285 a month. O’Brien, however, continued to pay $738 per month and his ex-wife was forced to file motions for contempt. O’Brien settled with her before any hearings were held.

In the State Bar proceedings, O’Brien claimed the trial court’s orders did not require him to pay anything, but only set forth amounts owed. He calculated a different, lower figure that he said represented the “just” amount of child support and that he was “finding the truth” regarding his child support obligations. “In sum,” Platel wrote, O’Brien “argues that he did not have to comply with the court’s child support order, because his version of the circumstances was the ‘truth’ and his method of calculating child support is ‘just.’ Such assertions are without rational basis and, thus, are rejected by this court.”

Platel found that O’Brien failed to obey a court order and made false statements to the court “for corrupt motives.”

“Throughout this disciplinary proceeding,” Platel wrote, O’Brien’s “testimony has changed and his version of the ‘truth’ becomes whatever best supports his claim at the moment, irrespective of any facts with which he is confronted.” He said O’Brien significantly harmed both his ex-wife and the courts by filing frivolous appeals and motions. O’Brien also “showed absolutely no remorse for his actions, other than perhaps a lack of judgment for filing his ‘lunch break appeal,’” Platel wrote.

Platel found that O’Brien had no prior discipline record and he cooperated during the State Bar Court proceedings.