Steven Frank McNichols was first admitted to the California Bar 30th January 1991, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Steven graduated from UC Hastings COL and was based in San Mateo.

Lawyer Information

NameSteven Frank McNichols
First Admitted30 January 1991 (28 years, 10 months ago)
StatusNot Eligible to Practice
Bar Number151934

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number(415) 651-9999
Fax Number(415) 651-9999

Schools

Law SchoolUC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniv of California at Los Angeles (CA)

Address

Current Address423 Broadway Avenue
#604
Millbrae, CA 94030
Current CountySan Mateo
Current DistrictDistrict 1
Map

History

11 June 2005Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (14 years, 6 months ago)
28 April 2003Inactive (16 years, 7 months ago)
20 August 2002Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (17 years, 3 months ago)
22 September 2000Inactive (19 years, 2 months ago)
30 January 1991Admitted to The State Bar of California (28 years, 10 months ago)

Disciplinary and Related Actions

11 August 200605-N-04946
Discipline w/actual suspension (Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA)
11 June 200505-O-00112
Discipline w/actual suspension (Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA)
20 August 200298-O-01181
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam (Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA)
1 July 200198-O-01181
Discipline, probation; no actual susp.

Discipline Summaries

August 11, 2006

STEVEN FRANK McNICHOLS, aka STEVEN EVERETT McNICHOLS [#151934], 67, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, and was placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension. The order took effect Aug. 11, 2006.

McNichols was ordered to comply with rule 955 as part of a 2005 disciplinary order, but he stipulated that he complied two months late.

The underlying discipline was imposed as a result of McNichols’ failure to comply with the conditions of a 2001 suspension. That discipline resulted from his failure to communicate with clients or promptly pay client funds.

In mitigation, he was suffering from bipolar disorder and did not properly focus his attention on the disciplinary requirements. He cooperated with the bar’s investigation.

June 11, 2005

STEVEN F. McNICHOLS [#151934], 66, of San Francisco Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for 30 days and until he proves his rehabilitation and takes the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 11, 2005.

McNichols violated the terms of a 2001 probation by failing to submit several quarterly reports or written medical reports.

The underlying discipline was imposed after McNichols stipulated to misconduct in two cases. In 1994 he failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information made by a client, and in 1999 he agreed to refund a $5,000 fee but was financially unable to do so.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.

July 1, 2001

STEVEN E. McNICHOLS [#151934], 62, of San Francisco was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on four years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and pay $5,000 in restitution. The order took effect July 1, 2001.

McNichols stipulated to misconduct in two cases. In 1994, he failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information made by a client.

The client retained McNichols in August 1994 to pursue administrative mandamus; between March and August 1995, the client inquired about the petition and was told by McNichols that he was awaiting a hearing date. In September, the client requested that McNichols obtain a hearing date because he wanted to retire. He also asked for a written accounting of the attorney’s time. McNichols instead telephoned the client, then filed the petition in October. He provided an accounting the following summer, then failed to respond to a request for a status report in 1997.

In August 1997, McNichols agreed to refund the client’s $5,000 if he did not prevail in court. The client filed a complaint with the State Bar the following year. McNichols did not take further action on behalf of the client and he did not refund the fees.

In 1999, he represented a couple in the woman’s employment matter; the couple discharged McNichols about a week later and requested a return of a $5,000 fee. McNichols agreed to return the fee but was financially unable to do so.

In mitigation, McNichols had no prior record of discipline in many years of practice. He cooperated with the bar’s investigation, showed remorse and acted in good faith. He suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, a stress-related condition, and has sought care. McNichols has virtually stopped practicing law, except for monitoring two appellate cases, has filed a disability claim and is now living in Mexico, where he hopes to pursue a career as a writer. Effective Sept. 22, 2000, he voluntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the California bar.