George Jan Paukert is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 11th June 1996. George graduated from University of West Los Angeles.

Lawyer Information

NameGeorge Jan Paukert
First Admitted11 June 1996 (27 years, 11 months ago)
StatusActive
Bar Number183124

Contact

Phone Number310-826-0180

Schools

Law SchoolUniversity of West Los Angeles (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of British Columbia (Canada)

Address

Current Address8584 Alpine Vineyards Ct
Las Vegas, NV 89139-6818
Map
Previous Address737 S Windsor Blvd #304
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Previous Address44376 Hazel Canyon Ln
Palm Desert, CA 92260-3054

History

8 June 2009Active (14 years, 11 months ago)
9 May 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 12 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-13239
10 June 2008Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-13239 (15 years, 11 months ago)
11 June 1996Admitted to the State Bar of California (27 years, 11 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

May 9, 2009

GEORGE J. PAUKERT [#183124], 58, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect May 9, 2009.

Paukert stipulated to three acts of misconduct stemming from the actions of his law office manager, Dae Won Kim. Throughout 2004, Paukert traveled frequently to Canada to care for his dying father and later to handle the father’s estate after his death. He did not have in place any procedures to ensure that his client trust account was handled properly or to alert him of any unauthorized activities.

During Paukert’s absence, five checks were written against insufficient funds in his trust account, totaling about $19,000 and 14 checks were cashed at a local liquor store and then refused by Paukert’s bank. When Paukert discovered the losses, he did not report Kim to law enforcement, nor did he resolve the issue with the liquor store.

The liquor store representative sued Paukert and filed a complaint with the State Bar. Paukert said he was negotiating with the liquor store and the complaint would be withdrawn if he could reach a satisfactory financial settlement. Eventually, the store owner withdrew his bar complaint and dismissed Paukert from his civil suit as a condition of the settlement.

Paukert stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently by not properly supervising an employee, he failed to properly maintain his client trust account, and he improperly entered into an agreement with the liquor store owner to withdraw his complaint in order to settle a civil matter.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation, his father died and Paukert was involved with settling his estate at the time of the misconduct, and he demonstrated his good character.