Shannon Roberts Boyd was first admitted to the California Bar 1st June 1994, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Shannon graduated from Thomas Jefferson SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Shannon Roberts Boyd |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 1 June 1994 (30 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 170169 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Phone Number | 949-315-5040 |
Schools
| Law School | Thomas Jefferson SOL (San Diego CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Southern Calif (Los Angeles CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 5940 N Sabino Shadow Ln Tucson, AZ 85750-1300 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | C/O Mary Victoria Dias 24892 Golden Vis Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 |
| Previous Address | 24892 Golden Vista Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-7461 |
History
| 1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
|---|---|
| 1 September 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 8 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 2 May 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-13897 |
| 18 January 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 3 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 01-O-03910 |
| 12 November 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 01-O-03910 |
| 25 March 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-03910 (22 years, 1 month ago) |
| 1 June 1994 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (30 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 12, 2005 SHANNON ROBERTS BOYD [#170169], 40, of Laguna Niguel was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with a one-year actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 12, 2005. The State Bar Court found that Boyd committed five acts of misconduct in a single case.He provided legal services to Family Store Entertainment, whose purpose was to produce a video, and its two principals. Boyd's compensation was to be determined when the project realized a profit. One of the group's principals told Boyd the group was seeking a $100,000 one-year bridge loan and was willing to offer the video and media rights as collateral and to pay 40 percent interest.Boyd contacted a longtime friend, who agreed to fund the loan and take rights to the video as collateral. Boyd agreed to represent his friend's interest in the loan and to prepare the loan documents. He was to receive 2.5 percent of the loan proceeds as payment for his legal services. Boyd never told his friend that he was representing both the lender and the borrower. He and his Family Store clients executed a letter that laid out Boyd's duties concerning the loan and retained him as general counsel. Boyd also wrote to the lender, telling him he planned to file a document with the U.S. Patent Office to protect the lender's intellectual property rights in the video. Boyd said he had entered into a separate agreement with Family Store's attorney without saying he was representing Family Store. He also gave the lender the phone number of the Family Store principals but cautioned, "Just tell them you are the investor but don't tell them anything about yourself unless you clear it with me first."Boyd received $2,500 as fees when the loan funds were transferred to his trust account. One of the Family Store principals testified that Boyd "made us sign a waiver because he said he found himself in a weird place."When Family Store defaulted on the loan, Boyd sent collection letters on behalf of the investor, demanding payment of more than $100,000.The lender sued Family Store, its principals and Boyd, alleging among other things that Boyd committed legal malpractice. He won a default judgment against Boyd of $233,137.50. In a motion to vacate the judgment, Boyd made false statements, including that he had no part in arranging the loan and that the lender had never retained him. The court denied the motion and sanctioned Boyd $7,924; he did not report the sanction to the bar. He tried to have the default judgment voided in federal court, again stating that he had no part in negotiating the loan, had received no payment and was not retained by the lender.The bar court found that Boyd represented adverse interests, committed acts of moral turpitude and failed to report court-ordered sanctions to the bar. |