Encino, CA 91436-4553
20 August 2003 | Disbarred (21 years, 10 months ago) Disbarment 02-N-14504 |
---|---|
2 March 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 02-N-14504 |
10 January 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 02-N-14504 |
22 November 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive |
20 July 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-15091 |
2 December 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-O-15091 |
22 May 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-15091 (24 years, 1 month ago) |
14 December 1992 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (32 years, 6 months ago) |
August 20, 2003 STEVEN CHARLES BRONSON [#162852], 38, of Encino was disbarred Aug. 20, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bronson did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2002 disciplinary order. Failure to do so is grounds for disbarment. The discipline was imposed for Bronson's failure to respond to clients' status inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation and for committing an act of moral turpitude with regard to one client.July 19, 2002 STEVEN CHARLES BRONSON [#162852], 37, of Encino was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect July 19, 2002. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bronson failed to perform legal services competently, inform his client of significant developments in a case or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he committed an act of moral turpitude based on misrepresentation.Bronson represented a client who paid a $1,800 advance fee to handle an appeal from an adverse summary judgment. Although he filed a notice of appeal, he never filed an opening brief and the appeal was dismissed.When the client inquired about the status of the case, Bronson told her he planned to file the opening brief soon, even though he knew the appeal had been dismissed.He also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation. |