Jagdip Singh Sekhon was admitted to the California Bar 7th June 1994, but has since been disbarred. Jagdip graduated from UC Davis SOL King Hall.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Jagdip Singh Sekhon |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 7 June 1994 (29 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 170324 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | UC Davis SOL King Hall (Davis CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | California St University Long Beach (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 5517 Pleasant Grove Ct Salida, CA 95368 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 23 July 2016 | Disbarred (7 years, 9 months ago) Disbarment 06-C-14843 |
|---|---|
| 4 August 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 12-PM-10790 |
| 29 March 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 12-PM-10790 |
| 1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 10 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 12 November 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 09-N-18176 |
| 31 August 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 8 months ago) Interim suspension after conviction 06-C-14843 |
| 22 July 2009 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 06-C-14843 (14 years, 9 months ago) |
| 17 December 2004 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 02-O-12471 (19 years, 4 months ago) |
| 7 June 1994 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (29 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
July 23, 2016 JAGDIP SINGH SEKHON [#170324], 49, of Salida, was summarily disbarred July 23, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In June 2009, Sekhon was convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, a felony that involved moral turpitude.August 4, 2012 The probation of JAGDIP SINGH SEKHON, 45, of Salida was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Aug. 4, 2012. Sekhon failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2010 disciplinary order; he did not contact the State Bar probation office or file five quarterly probation reports. Although his former attorney advised that Sekhon was incarcerated and would comply with probation conditions, he did not do so.Sekhon initially was disciplined in 2004 for misconduct in seven matters, including failing to communicate with clients or perform legal services competently and he improperly withdrew from representation. He was ordered to comply with rule 9.20, but filed a proof of compliance two months late and was thus suspended in 2010.November 12, 2010 JAGDIP SINGH SEKHON [#170324], 44, of Salida 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 and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Nov. 12, 2010. Sekhon failed to comply with rule 9.20, as required by his 2009 interim suspension following a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension.He also was disciplined in 2004 for misconduct in seven immigration cases. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and demonstrated remorse.December 17, 2004 JAGDIP SEKHON [#170324], 38, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 17, 2004. Sekhon stipulated to misconduct in seven immigration cases.In the first, a client hired Sekhon to determine if his disabled niece could obtain legal status in the U.S. Sekhon advised that she could not. About 18 months later, the same client told Sekhon that a treatment center needed certification that his niece resided in the country in order to receive services. Sekhon wrote a letter stating that the girl had applied for asylum, when in fact she had not. He stipulated that he failed to support the laws of the U.S. by writing the letter. In three matters, his clients’ cases — all applications for political asylum — were denied, but Sekhon did not tell the clients. He had not filed the required briefs.In another political asylum case, Sekhon accompanied the client to an interview with the asylum officer. Later, the client went alone to the officer and his request for asylum was referred to an immigration judge. Prior to the hearing, the client told Sekhon he was too ill to attend; Sekhon said he would get a continuance and told the client to get a letter from his doctor to support his claim of illness.Sekhon went to the hearing and told the judge he had not heard from his client and could not explain his absence. The judge ordered the client’s deportation, but Sekhon did not inform the client.In another political asylum matter, Sekhon said he would base the petition on the fact that the client was separated from her American husband who physically abused her. However, he did not ask the client to submit a divorce decree and the petition was denied, partly because the client could not prove she was legally married.Sekhon stipulated that he failed to keep clients informed about developments in their cases and improperly withdrew from representation.In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1994 admission to practice, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he submitted letters attesting to his good character. |