George Anthony Harris III was admitted to the California Bar 7th December 1995, but has since been disbarred. George graduated from George Washington University LS.
Lawyer Information
| Name | George Anthony Harris III |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 7 December 1995 (29 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 178771 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 510-234-0700 |
| Fax Number | 510-234-0701 |
Schools
| Law School | George Washington University LS (Washington DC) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Michigan (Ann Arbor MI) |
Address
| Current Address | 1300 Clay St #600 Oakland, CA 94612 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 15 May 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 11 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-10223 |
|---|---|
| 18 November 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10223 |
| 23 June 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10223 |
| 14 February 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-10223 (18 years, 2 months ago) |
| 18 May 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-13576 |
| 16 July 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-O-13576 |
| 17 March 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-13576 (20 years, 1 month ago) |
| 1 September 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 1 September 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 8 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 7 December 1995 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (29 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
May 14, 2008 GEORGE ANTHONY HARRIS III [#178771], 45, of Oakland was disbarred May 15, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Harris failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, since renumbered as rule 9.20, in a 2006 discipline. He did not submit to the bar court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel, courts and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.In the underlying matter, the court found that Harris engaged in unauthorized practice of law and failed to perform services competently, deposit client funds in a client trust account, maintain an official address with the State Bar, report judicial sanctions and cooperate with the State Bar in two client matters. He also improperly withdrew from employment and committed acts of dishonesty. Harris has “demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so,†wrote bar court Judge Pat McElroy, who recommended Harris’ disbarment.May 18, 2006 GEORGE HARRIS III [#178771], 43, of Oakland was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for six months and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 18, 2006. In a default matter, the State Bar Court found that Harris engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and committed misconduct in two matters, including failing to perform legal services competently, deposit client funds in a trust account, report judicial sanctions, maintain a current address with the bar or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he committed acts of dishonesty and improperly withdrew from representation.In one matter, Harris represented a client who filed a disability and age discrimination claim against the San Francisco Unified School District. He did not deposit the client’s $1,000 check for costs in his client trust account. Although he filed suit, he did not properly serve the named defendants. Harris falsely told the client he had served the defendants and they had filed their responses.He took no further action in the case and did not respond to his client’s inquiries.In another matter, a health care services business and an individual hired Harris to defend them in a civil suit filed by an estate. Harris filed an answer and a cross-complaint but did not respond to interrogatories on time. The court granted sanctions against Harris’ clients and ordered a response to the interrogatories.Harris did not inform his clients or appear at a hearing and was again sanctioned. The court eventually ordered a default judgment entered against Harris’ clients, but he did not inform them.While suspended for failure to pay bar dues or comply with MCLE requirements, Harris filed a complaint on behalf of a client and otherwise held himself out as entitled to practice. |