Craig Thomas Wormley was admitted to the California Bar 5th June 1996, but has since been disbarred. Craig graduated from Thomas M Cooley Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Craig Thomas Wormley |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 5 June 1996 (29 years ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 182137 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Phone Number | 310-914-2444 |
| Fax Number | 310-279-5101 |
Schools
| Law School | Thomas M Cooley Law School (Lansing MI) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Creighton University (Omaha NE) |
Address
| Current Address | Craig Wormley, 5850 Canoga Ave Ste 400 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6554 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | Craig Wormley 9663 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 285 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 |
| Previous Address | Craig Wormley, 9663 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 285 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 |
History
| 29 March 2014 | Disbarred (11 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 12-O-11132 |
|---|---|
| 28 July 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 12-O-11132 |
| 21 December 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-14607 (12 years, 5 months ago) |
| 17 October 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-11834 (12 years, 7 months ago) |
| 25 April 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-11132 (13 years, 1 month ago) |
| 6 July 2011 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 04-O-11943 (13 years, 11 months ago) |
| 18 February 2011 | Active (14 years, 3 months ago) |
| 18 February 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension; credit for prior ineligibility 04-O-10012 |
| 6 November 2009 | Active (15 years, 7 months ago) |
| 15 September 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 04-O-10012 |
| 12 October 2005 | Law Practice Restricted 04-O-10012 (19 years, 8 months ago) |
| 5 June 1996 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (29 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
March 29, 2014 CRAIG T. WORMLEY [#182137], 46, of Beverly Hills was disbarred March 29, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and make restitution. The State Bar Court found Wormley culpable of violating conditions of his probation stemming from two disciplinary matters. He also committed misconduct in three client matters including accepting fees from a non-client without the client’s consent and failing to perform legal services with competence, get court permission to withdraw from a case, cooperate with a State Bar investigation, render appropriate accounts to a client, return client papers or property or return unearned fees. In addition, Wormley engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.In the first of the three client matters, Wormley failed to show up for a client’s case management conference in 2011. He made no further appearances on behalf of the client and did not file a substitution of attorney or ask the court’s permission to withdraw from the case. He did not reply to a State Bar investigator’s letter inquiring about the complaint the client later made about him.In 2012, another client fired Wormley for being unresponsive after sending him a letter requesting the release of his file, the return of unearned fees and an accounting of costs. Wormley instead filed a summons and complaint in the case a few days later.In the third client matter, Wormley was hired by a woman in 2011 to file a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her incarcerated brother and never got consent from the client to accept payments from his sister. Despite the fact that the woman paid him $15,000 in attorney fees and expert witness fees, Wormley did not promptly file the writ. In March 2012, the woman emailed Wormley asking for an update, but he didn’t reply for more than a month. After she fired him, he did not return her brother’s file and did not return the unearned fees.He was ordered to pay $20,000 plus interest in restitution.Wormley has two prior records of discipline. In 2011, he stipulated to misconduct in 21 matters including for a false/misleading advertisement and failing to account for or pay out client funds, promptly return a client file, refund unearned fees or perform legal services competently.Also in 2011, Wormley was suspended for ethical violations in 15 client matters, including not refunding or promptly refunding unearned fees, not competently performing legal services, not promptly releasing client papers/property upon termination of employment, aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, charging unconscionable or illegal fees, noncompliance with a court order and failing to communicate.July 6, 2011 CRAIG THOMAS WORMLEY [#182137], 43, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on five years of probation, effective July 6, 2011. That discipline followed a Feb. 18, 2011, four-year stayed suspension, five years of probation with a 15-month actual suspension and an order to take the MPRE within one year. Wormley successfully completed the Alternative Discipline Program after demonstrating a connection between his misconduct and his mental health problems. He stipulated to misconduct in 21 matters: false/misleading advertisement in one matter, failures to pay out client funds (one matter), promptly return a client file (one matter), account for client funds (four matters), refund unearned fees (10 matters) or perform legal services competently (14 matters). Following his completion of the ADP, the bar filed additional disciplinary charges against Wormley, involving 13 clients and many involving the same types of misconduct during the same timeframe.In 2002, Wormley founded a law firm that he expected would handle criminal defense matters throughout the state. He advertised extensively in northern and southern California and planned to hire local attorneys as independent contractors whom he would pay a percentage of fees. However, Wormley took no steps to ensure that employees were properly trained or that clients received the services for which they contracted. Further, he delegated authority to non-attorney employees to meet with clients, evaluate their issues and provide legal advice, decide whether to accept their cases and set fees.He did not attend client meetings, examine the law firm’s practices concerning intake, review its finances or monitor employee actions. |