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 College of the Law, San Francisco.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Steven Frank McNichols |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 30 January 1991 (33 years, 2 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 151934 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 415-651-9999 |
| Fax Number | 415-651-9999 |
Schools
| Law School | UC College of the Law, San Francisco (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 423 Broadway Avenue, #604 Millbrae, CA 94030 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 11 August 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-N-04946 |
|---|---|
| 11 June 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-00112 |
| 28 April 2003 | Inactive (20 years, 12 months ago) |
| 20 August 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 98-O-01181 |
| 1 July 2001 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 98-O-01181 (22 years, 9 months ago) |
| 22 September 2000 | Inactive (23 years, 7 months ago) |
| 30 January 1991 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (33 years, 2 months ago) |
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He cooperated with the bar’s investigation.June 11, 2005 STEVEN F. McNICHOLS [#151934], 66, of San Francisco Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for 30 days and until he proves his rehabilitation and takes the MPRE.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. |