David M VanSickle was admitted to the California Bar 13th December 1993, but has since been disbarred. David graduated from Southwestern University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | David M VanSickle |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 13 December 1993 (31 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 167401 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 818-302-5761 |
Schools
| Law School | Southwestern University SOL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Minnesota (Minneapolis MN) |
Address
| Current Address | 5402 66th St, Apt 1127 Lubbock, TX 79424-1361 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | David Van Sickle, Attorney PO Box 71 La Mirada, CA 90637 |
| Previous Address | 1718 E Ocean Blvd, Apt 10 Long Beach, CA 90802-6054 |
| Previous Address | 203 E Ransom Rd Apt 501 Aransas Pass, TX 78336-5244 |
History
| 19 February 2016 | Disbarred (9 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 14-O-04243 |
|---|---|
| 11 September 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 14-O-04243 |
| 8 June 2015 | Active (9 years, 11 months ago) |
| 28 March 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 14-O-04243 |
| 28 October 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-O-04243 (10 years, 7 months ago) |
| 15 June 2012 | Discipline w/actual suspension; credit for prior ineligibility 08-J-10456 (12 years, 11 months ago) |
| 22 December 2010 | Active (14 years, 5 months ago) |
| 15 March 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-J-10456 |
| 23 April 2009 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-11418 (16 years, 1 month ago) |
| 21 November 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-J-10456 (16 years, 6 months ago) |
| 17 October 2007 | Active (17 years, 7 months ago) |
| 4 October 2007 | Inactive (17 years, 8 months ago) |
| 23 February 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-12923 |
| 2 January 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12923 (23 years, 5 months ago) |
| 1 January 2001 | Inactive (24 years, 5 months ago) |
| 13 December 1993 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (31 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
February 19, 2016 DAVID M. VANSICKLE [#167401], 62, of La Mirada, was disbarred from the practice of law Feb. 19, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. VanSickle was found culpable of violating the conditions of his disciplinary probation by failing to pay restitution or provide proof he entered into and was in compliance with a payment plan as ordered by the Minnesota Supreme Court.He had two prior records of discipline. In January 2007, he was suspended for acquiring an interest adverse to a client and collecting an illegal or unconscionable fee. In 2012, he was suspended for commingling funds in trust, committing acts of moral turpitude and failing to perform legal services with competence, maintain client funds in trust, promptly pay out client funds, maintain proper accounts, pay restitution or file quarterly reports as required by his disciplinary probation.June 15, 2012 DAVID M. VAN SICKLE, 58, of La Mirada was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 15, 2012. Van Sickle successfully completed the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline Program for attorneys with mental health or substance abuse problems after demonstrating a connection between his misconduct and his mental health issue.He was disciplined in Minnesota and stipulated that he violated six California professional conduct rules, including failures to perform legal services competently, maintain client funds in trust, keep proper accounts and promptly pay out client funds, and he commingled funds in his trust account and committed acts of moral turpitude by bouncing checks and making a misrepresentation to a judge.He also admitted he violated probation conditions attached to a 2007 discipline imposed for acquiring an interest adverse to a client and collecting an illegal fee.In mitigation, Van Sickle cooperated with the bar’s investigation, the client trust account misconduct was magnified by bank errors, and he presented evidence of his good character.February 23, 2007 DAVID M. VAN SICKLE [#167401], 53, of Roseville, Minn. was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a three-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955, take the MPRE and make restitution. The order took effect Feb. 23, 2007. The State Bar Court review department, in a second ruling on Van Sickle’s misconduct, found that he charged an unconscionable fee in two matters he handled for a client and acquired an interest adverse to the client’s.The client was injured in an automobile accident. She was driving a U.S. Postal Service truck that was involved in a crash with a car and another truck. The client originally hired another lawyer to handle her personal injury claim against the driver and owner of the car. After the first lawyer did significant work on the case, the client decided to handle it herself. The lawyer filed a lien against any recovery in the amount of $1,289.73 for costs plus one third of any recovery. The client also sued the truck driver separately.After interviewing three other lawyers, she hired Van Sickle to handle both personal injury lawsuits, a workers’ compensation claim and a fee dispute with the first attorney. Van Sickle and the client entered into a fee agreement that called for him to receive 35 percent of any settlement or judgment plus costs. Van Sickle said the client agreed to bear the full risk that she would be required to pay the first attorney his fees as well as pay Van Sickle’s 35 percent contingent fee. The client said Van Sickle never explained that she would have to pay both fees.That is exactly what happened when the client received a $50,000 settlement. A fee arbitrator awarded the first lawyer $12,500 and Van Sickle took $14,874.99. Together, the lawyers were paid 53.75 percent of the settlement, an amount the review department said was unconscionable.Van Sickle also charged the client a 25 percent contingency fee for the workers’ comp case, in which the client received nothing but medical benefits she obtained prior to hiring him. Van Sickle collected more than $2,200, 35 percent of the amount the client had received from her employer. The review department found that Van Sickle was entitled to no fees in that matter.Van Sickle represented the client at a fee arbitration hearing for which he charged $500. The client agreed to pay the fee in installments and also agreed that if she were more than three days late on a payment, the entire amount would be due and payable. She granted Van Sickle a lien on her home to secure the fee. Van Sickle admitted that he acquired an interest adverse to the client by not advising her to seek independent legal advice before entering into the fee agreement with him.In mitigation, Van Sickle entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar as to some charges and he performed pro bono and community service. |