Michael Scott Miller was admitted to the California Bar 8th June 1992, but has since been disbarred. Michael graduated from UC Hastings COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Michael Scott Miller |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 8 June 1992 (32 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 158019 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | (209) 588-8220 |
| Fax Number | (209) 588-8243 |
Schools
| Law School | UC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Michael S. Miller, 1931 Cordova Rd Unit 2005 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316-2157 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | Law Office of Michael S. Miller PO Box 586 Jamestown, CA 95327 |
History
| 22 December 2021 | Disbarred (3 years, 4 months ago) Disbarment 20-O-30178 |
|---|---|
| 19 July 2021 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (3 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 20-O-30178 |
| 25 September 2020 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 7 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 20-Q-30655 |
| 16 March 2020 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 20-O3-00178 (5 years, 1 month ago) |
| 31 January 2018 | Inactive (7 years, 3 months ago) |
| 12 June 2006 | Active (18 years, 10 months ago) |
| 3 December 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 01-O-05118 |
| 23 June 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-05118 (20 years, 10 months ago) |
| 8 June 1992 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (32 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 3, 2005 MICHAEL S. MILLER [#158019], 44, of Valley Springs was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Dec. 3, 2005. Miller stipulated to two counts of misconduct while representing an elderly and comparatively unsophisticated couple in a legal dispute over a piece of property. The couple agreed to pay Miller $300 an hour and, if unable to pay half of the fees at the time they were incurred, to pay 40 percent of the gross selling price of the home. They paid Miller $7,000 over 10 months, and when the property was sold, the title company issued a check for $238,036 to the couple. At Miller’s request, they allowed him to deposit the money in his client trust account. He later told them he was exercising the contingent fee provision of the fee agreement and taking a fee of $174,375.31. He thus took 73 percent of the net sales price of the property.The fee was unconscionable. Miller also convinced his clients to execute three deeds of trust against their residence, amounting to $200,000. The couple never borrowed any money, but recording the deeds of trust was an attempt to mislead the daughter into believing the parents’ home was heavily encumbered. He stipulated that he collected an unconscionable fee and violated the duty to “employ means only as are consistent with the truth.â€In mitigation, Miller has no prior record of discipline and he paid the clients $55,000 without the necessity of a civil trial. |