Blue Jay, CA 92317-5324
16 October 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 6 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-14063 |
---|---|
23 May 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-14063 |
25 February 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-14063 |
14 December 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-14063 (17 years, 4 months ago) |
9 September 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-11673 |
28 April 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-03932 |
2 December 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-11673 |
12 October 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-11673 (18 years, 6 months ago) |
16 July 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-O-03932 |
10 May 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-03932 (18 years, 12 months ago) |
30 January 2006 | Active (19 years, 3 months ago) |
16 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
1 November 2000 | Active (24 years, 6 months ago) |
27 September 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
21 October 1994 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (30 years, 6 months ago) |
October 16, 2008 JOHN HARVEY BRAMLETT [#171763], 46, of Blue Jay was disbarred Oct. 16, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bramlett did not submit to the court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his 2007 suspension from practice. Failure to comply with the requirement is grounds for disbarment.In the underlying discipline, Bramlett was suspended for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction, violating a court order and not cooperating with the bar’s investigation. Bramlett also was disciplined in 2007 for failing to perform legal services competently or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.September 9, 2007 JOHN H. BRAMLETT [#171763], 45, of Blue Jay was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for six months and until he pays sanctions, files an affidavit required by the federal district court and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 9, 2007. Although Bramlett is not a member of the bar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District or of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he filed a complaint in district court on behalf of a plaintiff. He did not file a joint status report, as required, and did not appear at a hearing concerning sanctions. He was sanctioned $500 and was ordered to file an affidavit with the payment within 10 days. He did not do so. The bar court found that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction, violated a court order and failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation. Bramlett was previously disciplined in a default proceeding for failing to perform legal services competently or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings.April 28, 2007 JOHN H. BRAMLETT [#171763], 45, of Blue Jay was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 45 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 28, 2007. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Bramlett committed two acts of misconduct in a single matter. While working part time for an attorney who was scheduled to have major surgery, he agreed to take on more work, including preparing an amended complaint in a federal case. Bramlett did no work on the case and did not return the client's phone calls.The bar court found that he failed to perform legal services competently or cooperate with the bar's investigation. |