Larry Paul James was admitted to the California Bar 28th November 1996, but has since been disbarred. Larry graduated from McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific.

Lawyer Information

NameLarry Paul James
First Admitted28 November 1996 (27 years, 5 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number183769

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number916-444-7334
Fax Number916-444-6649

Schools

Law SchoolMcGeorge SOL University of the Pacific (CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCalifornia St University Sacramento (CA)

Address

Current AddressJames Intl Law Inc, 1207 Front St #22
Sacramento, CA 95814-3200
Map

History

6 December 2012Disbarred (11 years, 5 months ago)
Disbarment 11-N-12835
30 June 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago)
Ordered inactive 11-N-12835
4 June 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 11 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 07-O-10328
18 November 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 5 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 09-O-13989
7 October 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 7 months ago)
Ordered inactive 11-N-12835
1 July 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 10 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
21 June 2011Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-N-12835 (12 years, 10 months ago)
4 March 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 2 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-10328
17 November 2010Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-13989 (13 years, 5 months ago)
28 November 1996Admitted to the State Bar of California (27 years, 5 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

December 6, 2012

LARRY PAUL JAMES [#183769], 46, of Sacramento was disbarred Dec. 6, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

James was charged in 2011 with failing to comply with rule 9.20 under an earlier disciplinary order. When he did not appear for trial, his default was entered; when he did not try to have the default set aside, he was disbarred under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure. James had six other disciplinary matters pending before the bar court and he has two prior discipline records.

In the underlying matter, James was placed on probation for three years and suspended for two years and until he made restitution to two clients and proved his rehabilitation. The misconduct, in two matters, included failures to perform legal services competently, return $15,000 in unearned fees or communicate with his client and he engaged in acts of moral turpitude.

Earlier, he was placed on two years of probation and given a 90-day stayed suspension for misconduct in four client matters, including failures to perform services competently, return $11,100 in unearned fees, cooperate in a bar investigation and communicate with his client.

As part of the disbarment, the bar court concluded James did not comply with rule 9.20 because he failed to submit an affidavit stating he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension.

November 18, 2011

LARRY PAUL JAMES, 46, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a two-year actual suspension and until he makes restitution and proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Nov. 18, 2011.

The State Bar Court found that James committed five acts of misconduct in two matters.

The first involved a South Carolina resident, Thong Thai Vu, who had an 11th grade education in Vietnam and doesn’t speak fluent English. He was ordered removed from the United States and located James through a Vietnamese-language newspaper ad placed by Mr. Bui, a translator who did contract work for James. Essentially, the ad stated that persons facing deportation should contact Bui, who would find a lawyer to handle the deportation order. Vu contacted Bui, who told him he had to come to California and pay James $15,000 to take his case. Bui said Vu should come to California so his case could be in the Ninth Circuit. Vu hired James to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, paying $15,000 in fees.

Although James filed a notice of appeal, he never filed the brief and as a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Vu contacted a North Carolina attorney, who was unable to contact James and got into an argument with Bui. Vu fired James and sought fee arbitration. James and the new lawyer agreed that Vu would withdraw his complaint to the bar if James refunded $12,000. Vu withdrew his complaint but James never paid him.

The court found that he failed to perform legal services competently or refund an unearned fee.

In the second matter, James was hired to file an appeal with the BIA on behalf of two people who paid a $3,000 fee. He did not file an appeal brief or perform any other work on the clients’ behalf and the matter was dismissed. James didn’t tell the clients, who talked to him several times to discuss the status of their matter. When they learned about the dismissal, they hired a new lawyer who successfully moved to reopen the case.

The bar court found that James failed to perform legal services competently or inform his clients of significant developments and he committed acts of moral turpitude by misleading the clients.

James was disciplined in March 2011 for similar misconduct. In mitigation, he had family, financial and health problems.

March 4, 2011

LARRY PAUL JAMES [#183769], 45, of Sacramento was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect March 4, 2011.

The State Bar Court found that James committed seven acts of misconduct in four immigration matters. He failed to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. The court pointed out that three clients, one with two handicapped children and financial problems, had to find other counsel at a cost of $15,000. Another client suffered a direct loss of not being paid in a timely matter.

While representing a couple before the Board of Immigration Review, James did not file a brief and the appeal was denied. Without telling the clients he never filed a brief, he agreed to file a motion to reconsider, which also was filed late and was denied. The bar court found that James’ services “were so deficient as to be worthless.” He did not refund the client’s advance $7,500 fee. The court also rejected his “attempt to shift the blame to his client for his inaction,” and called the late filing inexcusable.

Another client who hired James to help with an immigration matter so she could petition to bring her married daughter to the United States later changed her mind and James agreed to refund the $1,800 fee. However, his office was in disarray and although James thought a refund check was mailed, he did not follow through until the State Bar intervened.

James filed an application for asylum and cancellation of removal for another client. The application was denied and the client was ordered removed but she didn’t leave the country. Although James’ contract with the client did not call for him to represent her on appeal, he agreed to do so because, he said, he felt sorry for her. He filed the appeal one day late and it was denied.

James did nothing to correct the untimeliness of the appeal nor did he explain the significance of the dismissal to the client. He also didn’t tell her that her failure to leave the U.S. voluntarily had an effect on her status. When she appeared for an interview to adjust her status and reapply for admission, she was told the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services did not have jurisdiction because she was in removal proceedings. She was not taken into custody because she had a baby with her. James missed a subsequent appointment and the client hired a new lawyer who got the case reopened due to “ineffective assistance of counsel.”

In another asylum matter, James did not file a motion to reopen a dismissal on time nor did he request a stay from removal. Again the bar court found that James’ services “were so deficient as to be worthless” and his failure to file a required motion on time was “incompetent.” He did not earn nor refund any of the $3,600 fee.

In mitigation, he practiced for eight and a half years without a discipline record, had financial and emotional difficulties and presented evidence of his good character.