Tam Nguyen was admitted to the California Bar 8th June 1992, but has since been disbarred. Tam graduated from Lincoln Law Sch of San Jose.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Tam Nguyen |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 8 June 1992 (32 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 159601 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 408-876-8766 |
| Fax Number | 408-993-0527 |
Schools
| Law School | Lincoln Law Sch of San Jose (San Jose CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Park Coll (Parkville MO) |
Address
| Current Address | Tam Nguyen & Associates, 1091 Woodminster Dr San Jose, CA 95121 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 1 March 2017 | Disbarred (8 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 14-O-05978 |
|---|---|
| 10 October 2016 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 14-O-05978 |
| 30 November 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 5 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 15-Q-15735 |
| 14 July 2015 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-O-05978 (9 years, 9 months ago) |
| 7 February 2005 | Active (20 years, 2 months ago) |
| 24 December 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-11507 |
| 30 January 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-11507 (21 years, 3 months ago) |
| 8 June 1992 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (32 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 24, 2004 TAM NGUYEN [#159601], 48, of San Jose was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 24, 2004. Nguyen stipulated that he misused his client trust account by writing checks against insufficient funds, releasing checks to clients prior to their funds actually being in the account and depositing and commingling personal and client funds.In mitigation, Nguyen’s clients demanded the immediate release of settlement funds and he felt an obligation to comply with their demands, even when settlement checks had not cleared. He has no prior record of discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |