Nolan Anthony DelCampo is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 11th February 1991. Nolan graduated from UC Davis SOL King Hall.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Nolan Anthony DelCampo |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 11 February 1991 (34 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 152113 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Phone Number | 916-969-4411 |
| Fax Number | (916) 967-6758 |
Schools
| Law School | UC Davis SOL King Hall (Davis CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | See Registration Card |
Address
| Current Address | Law Ofc Nolan DelCampo, 3900 Villa Ct Fair Oaks, CA 95628-7422 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | Law Ofc Nolan DelCampo, 11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 310-313 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4484 |
History
| 4 May 2011 | Active (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|---|---|
| 3 March 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 10-PM-08533 |
| 13 November 2009 | Active (15 years, 7 months ago) |
| 16 July 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-O-12090 |
| 1 August 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-12090 (16 years, 10 months ago) |
| 20 April 2005 | Active (20 years, 2 months ago) |
| 7 August 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-11347 |
| 4 December 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-11347 (21 years, 6 months ago) |
| 18 July 1997 | Active (27 years, 11 months ago) |
| 1 January 1995 | Inactive (30 years, 5 months ago) |
| 11 February 1991 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (34 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
March 3, 2011 The probation of NOLAN ANTHONY DelCAMPO [#152113], 49, of Fair Oaks was revoked, and he was placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect March 3, 2011. DelCampo violated the terms of a 2009 disciplinary order by submitting four quarterly probation reports late and failing to provide proof of attendance at ethics school. The underlying discipline was imposed for failure to comply with a 2004 probation imposed after DelCampo stipulated to misconduct in two cases. He admitted he had an improper business relationship with a non-lawyer, failed to perform legal services competently, misled the court, disobeyed a court order and failed to report sanctions to the bar.July 16, 2009 NOLAN DelCAMPO [#152113], 48, of Fair Oaks was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect July 16, 2009. DelCampo violated the terms of a 2004 disciplinary order, imposed after he stipulated to misconduct in two matters. He admitted he had an improper business relationship with a non-lawyer, failed to perform legal services competently, misled the court, disobeyed a court order and failed to report sanctions to the bar.He filed eight quarterly probation reports late, did not attend ethics school on time and missed a restitution payment.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he was unable to make restitution because of severe financial difficulties.August 7, 2004 NOLAN A. DEL CAMPO [#152113], 43, of Carmichael was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE, comply with rule 955, make restitution and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 7, 2004. Del Campo stipulated to misconduct in two cases. According to the stipulation, Del Campo entered into an agreement with Mervyn Naidoo, the proprietor of Allied Legal Consultants (ALC), to be the trial attorney on two cases. He had substituted into a personal injury case, and agreed to be responsible for making court appearances, filing motions and arbitration and trial if necessary. Naidoo would be responsible for discovery and preliminary settlement negotiations. ALC agreed to compensate Del Campo at a rate of $80 per hour and to reimburse him for costs.Del Campo said Naidoo claimed to be a lawyer, but Del Campo made no effort to ascertain if that were true.He did not review the file in the personal injury matter until the day before the arbitration and he did not talk to the client or two assistants working on the case in advance. Del Campo did not respond to discovery requests, but filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss the case. The opposition papers stated that his client could not complete discovery because he was depressed and addicted to painkillers, had been unavailable for eight weeks and that Del Campo had tried to notify opposing counsel of the client’s unavailability. None of that was true.At a hearing, a person identifying himself as Del Campo appeared by telephone.Del Campo later submitted documentation in support of the opposition that included a declaration, purportedly signed by a doctor, that the client had been in a drug-diversion program for eight weeks. The information was false.The client was sanctioned $990. Naidoo attended the arbitration in the capacity of an attorney. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the other party, who then sought sanctions because of the false declarations. Del Campo blamed the false documents on one of his employees and admitted he did virtually no work on the case and did not supervise his employees.The case was dismissed and sanctions of $1,149 were ordered. The judge found that Del Campo participated in a scheme to mislead the court and held him responsible for his employees’ actions. He later ordered more sanctions of $880, as a result of the deceptive telephone call, and ordered Del Campo to pay costs of more than $4,500.When he filed a motion for reconsideration, the judge ordered him to pay another $1,328 to the opposing party, ruling the reconsideration motion was frivolous.Del Campo never paid the sanctions or reported them to the State Bar.He stipulated that he had an improper business relationship with a non-lawyer, failed to perform legal services competently, misled the court, disobeyed a court order and failed to report sanctions to the bar.The second case was a divorce proceeding, in which Del Campo substituted in to represent the husband’s interest after completion of a psychological evaluation of his son. The client paid him $1,500 and agreed to pay $75 an hour. Although Del Campo contacted the counseling program twice, the client resolved the issue himself. A new lawyer asked Del Campo to refund the client’s unearned fee.When he presented the bill, he listed his fee as $90 an hour and charged for the initial consultation that the client believed was free. He said the client was owed $910. The client demanded a full refund. When the client complained to the State Bar, Del Campo refunded $810.In mitigation, Del Campo has no prior record of discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |