Los Angeles, CA 90051
19 November 2009 | Disbarred (15 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 07-C-12435 |
---|---|
29 January 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 3 months ago) Interim suspension after conviction 07-C-12435 |
19 December 2008 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 07-C-12435 (16 years, 4 months ago) |
16 August 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
24 July 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 9 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 07-Q-12848 |
4 August 2001 | Active (23 years, 9 months ago) |
6 May 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 97-O-14251 |
20 January 1993 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (32 years, 3 months ago) |
November 26, 2009 DERK W. SCHUTMAAT [#163633], 54, of Los Angeles was summarily disbarred Nov. 26, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Schutmaat pleaded guilty in 2008 to two counts of embezzlement and one count of embezzlement or identity theft from an elder adult. Because the convictions were for forgeries involving moral turpitude, Schutmaat was eligible for summary disbarment. He had attempted to resign from the bar, but the Supreme Court rejected the resignation.The bar charged him in 2006 with 30 charges of misconduct in nine cases, many involving misappropriating money from his clients. In one case, the bar accused him of taking almost $67,000 from a client’s settlement proceeds.He also was suspended and placed on probation in 2001 after stipulating to three counts of misconduct, all of which involved money matters.May 6, 2001 DERK W. SCHUTMAAT [#163633], 45, of Roseville was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for three years with a 90-day actual suspension. He was ordered to comply with rule 955 and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 6, 2001. Schutmaat stipulated to three counts of misconduct, all of which involved money matters. In one 1995 case, Schutmaat failed to notify a client that he had received a partial divorce settlement for $2,025 on her behalf. The client learned about the check five months later when told of it by her ex-husband.In a second count attached to that case, Schutmaat charged an unconscionable fee, collecting from a client both an hourly and maximum contingency fee. He first collected the hourly fee, telling the client he would agree to a 30 percent contingency fee if the case settled and 40 percent if it went to trial. The matter settled, but Schutmaat failed to credit the client with $3,296 he owed her.In another case, Schutmaat issued at least 25 checks in 1997 and 1998 from a client trust account for personal expenses or business expenses not related to his client.In mitigation, Schutmaat had no prior record of discipline, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation, expressed remorse and paid full restitution to the client he overcharged. |