Adam Mitchell London was admitted to the California Bar 4th December 1990, but has since been disbarred. Adam graduated from Pepperdine University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameAdam Mitchell London
First Admitted4 December 1990 (34 years, 6 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number150639

Schools

Law SchoolPepperdine University SOL (Malibu CA)
Undergraduate SchoolBoston University (Boston MA)

Address

Current Address9350 Wilshire Blvd Ste 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Map

History

21 August 2011Disbarred (13 years, 10 months ago)
Disbarment 05-O-02640
29 March 2010Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 2 months ago)
Ordered inactive 05-O-02640
28 October 2008Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-02640 (16 years, 7 months ago)
4 December 1990Admitted to the State Bar of California (34 years, 6 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

August 21, 2011

ADAM MITCHELL LONDON [#150639], 47, of El Monte, was disbarred Aug. 21, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court review department found that London committed 14 counts of misconduct in five matters, ranging from his failure to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries to misappropriating $40,000.

In the most serious matter, London, a criminal defense attorney, represented a client who was convicted of 13 counts of tax-related offenses and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. After the court of appeal affirmed the conviction, he hired London, paid him $12,500 to review his documents and provide a legal opinion. He then hired London and paid him $100,000 to review the entire case.

London deposited the funds in his client trust account which had a prior balance of $369.93. Two days later, he transferred $10,000 from his trust account into his business account, then moved the remaining $90,000 into his personal bank account, again leaving a balance of $369.93.

While the client was incarcerated, he and London signed an agreement in which the client said he did not wish to pursue further appeals and London said he was not retained to do so. The client later changed his mind, London filed a writ and converted $40,000 of advanced attorney fees into a flat fee with no requirement of providing an accounting. The writ was denied and the client later disputed the fee and demanded a refund of $90,000 and the return of his file. London did not respond.

The client sued London for possession of personal property and unjust enrichment. The matter settled for $20,000 and no admission of liability by London.

Although London argued that he did not have to keep $40,000 in his trust account and could withdraw the money whenever he wished, the court said the fee agreement was clear: He was required to keep the money in his trust account until it was earned. Instead, the review panel said, London withdrew $40,000 within seven days without the client’s consent and without doing any work. The misappropriation was an act of moral turpitude, and London also failed to account for client funds or return the client’s file, the panel found.

In another matter, it found that London did not respond to his client’s status inquiries or refund an unearned fee. He also tried to represent a criminal defendant in Arizona although he was not licensed in that jurisdiction. He associated with local counsel but the client complained to the Arizona bar because London did not disclose his status to her and paid another firm to represent her. He collected an illegal fee and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

London also practiced law while ineligible due to his failure to comply with MCLE requirements, committing an act of moral turpitude.

Although the review department gave London some mitigation for 14 years of discipline-free practice, it also found that he failed “to acknowledge or understand that his misappropriation of $40,000 from his CTA compromised his fiduciary duty to protect (his client’s) funds. London has failed to realize the impact his misconduct had on his clients,” wrote Judge JoAnn Remke. “His failure to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions and the extent of his misconduct is particularly troubling.”