Chet Williams was admitted to the California Bar 29th September 1992, but has since been disbarred. Chet graduated from Georgetown University Law Ctr.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Chet Williams |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 29 September 1992 (31 years, 7 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 160015 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 323-295-9170 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Georgetown University Law Ctr (Washington DC) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | P O Box 88646 Los Angeles, CA 90009-8646 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 2 April 2003 | Disbarred (21 years, 1 month ago) Disbarment 02-N-12385 |
|---|---|
| 16 September 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 02-N-12385 |
| 16 September 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 28 July 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 02-N-12385 |
| 10 June 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-N-12385 (21 years, 10 months ago) |
| 3 April 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-13530 |
| 14 June 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-13530 |
| 12 March 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-13530 (23 years, 1 month ago) |
| 17 August 2000 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 99-PM-12840 (23 years, 8 months ago) |
| 12 June 1998 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-15612 (25 years, 10 months ago) |
| 4 August 1997 | Active (26 years, 9 months ago) |
| 21 July 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 5 December 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-15612 (27 years, 4 months ago) |
| 29 September 1992 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (31 years, 7 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
April 2, 2003 CHET WILLIAMS [#160015], 45, of Los Angeles was disbarred April 2, 2003, and ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams failed to comply with rule 955, as ordered in a 2002 disciplinary proceeding. He did not file with the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he had notified his clients, opposing parties and the courts of his suspension from practice. The underlying proceeding, also a default, found that Williams committed multiple acts of misconduct, including failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees, release client files, inform a client of significant developments or cooperate with the bar's investigation. He also improperly withdrew from employment and committed an act of moral turpitude. Williams also was disciplined in 1998 for failing to provide a written disclosure of possible adverse consequences of his representation in a real estate matter and for failing to release the client's file, and in 2000 for failing to comply with probation conditions attached to the 1998 order.August 17, 2000 The probation of CHET WILLIAMS [#160015], 42, of Los Angeles was extended for six months. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000. Williams stipulated that he violated the terms of a 1998 discipline order: He did not submit proof of completion of six hours of MCLE courses in ethics, client relations or law office management on time.The original discipline was imposed for failure to promptly return client papers and for failing to disclose to a client a possible conflict of interest in a real estate matter.June 12, 1998 CHET WILLIAMS [#160015], 40, of Los Angeles was suspended for 180 days, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 12, 1998. Williams stipulated that in a real estate matter, he failed to provide his clients written disclosure of a possible conflict of interest. When the clients fired him, he did not release records to the new attorney.In the real estate case, Williams represented two clients who had sold a residential apartment building in Los Angeles. When they retained him to handle litigation which arose later, he did not notify them in writing that their realtor was his mother. Williams claims he explained the potential conflict to one of the clients before accepting employment, but the client says he did not. |