Charles Edward Smith Jr is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 4th February 1991. Charles graduated from Armstrong Coll.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Charles Edward Smith Jr |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 4 February 1991 (33 years, 3 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 152034 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 510-843-7628 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Armstrong Coll (Berkeley CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Golden Gate University (San Francisco CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 2414 Sacramento Street, Apartment No. 2 Berkeley, CA 94702-2130 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | PO Box 24111 Oakland, CA 94623-1111 |
History
| 11 December 2015 | Active (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 31 January 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 2 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 05-O-05173 |
| 20 January 2009 | Active (15 years, 3 months ago) |
| 21 November 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-05173 |
| 19 July 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-05173 (16 years, 9 months ago) |
| 27 April 1998 | Active (26 years ago) |
| 5 March 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 1 month ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-18560 |
| 19 June 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 94-O-18560 |
| 22 April 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-18560 (27 years ago) |
| 4 February 1991 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (33 years, 3 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 21, 2008 CHARLES E. SMITH JR. [#152034], 68, of Oakland was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and he was ordered to pay restitution and take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation; if it exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Nov. 21, 2008. The State Bar Court found that Smith committed three acts of misconduct while handling a slip and fall case. Although he filed a complaint, he never served the defendants, claiming the name of the restaurant where the client fell had changed and he could not find another defendant. Smith attended two case management conferences that were continued and he did not appear at a third, claiming he did not receive notice. He also said he was not notified of an order to pay sanctions, and he failed to appear at five more case management conferences. The case was dismissed with prejudice and Smith was sanctioned $1,250 and referred to the State Bar. He took no further action and did not pay any sanctions because he believes the bar should defend him against the sanctions. He told the bar court he stopped receiving notices about the case from the court and has had problems receiving his mail.The court found that he failed to perform legal services competently, obey court orders or keep his client informed of developments in her case. It rejected a charge that he abandoned his client.Smith was disciplined in 1998 for failing to perform legal services competently and abide by an agreement in lieu of discipline.In mitigation, he presented evidence of community service.March 5, 1998 CHARLES EDWARD SMITH, JR. [#152034], 57, of Oakland was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on probation for one year, including 30 days of an actual suspension, effective March 5, 1998. He was ordered to pass the MPRE. Smith failed to comply with conditions of a 1995 agreement in lieu of discipline, the result of his reckless failure to perform legal services competently in one matter. Having violated the agreement, he was found culpable of failure to render services. No mitigating circumstances were found. Smith had been admitted to practice only about two years when his misconduct began, which is not considered a sufficient period to show the absence of a prior record of discipline. In aggravation, he failed to participate in the current matter prior to entry of default. In addition, his misconduct harmed his client. The bar's trial counsel had originally recommended a 90-day actual suspension with a one-year stayed suspension and two years of probation. However, the bar court hearing department considered that recommendation too severe. |