Jason Michael Kerlan is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 2nd December 1996. Jason graduated from San Joaquin COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Jason Michael Kerlan |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 2 December 1996 (28 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 183897 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 559-259-5959 |
Schools
| Law School | San Joaquin COL (Fresno CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | PO Box 975 Fresno, CA 93714-0975 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 17 November 2009 | Active (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 17 October 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-11986 |
| 27 December 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-11986 (18 years, 4 months ago) |
| 2 December 1996 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (28 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 17, 2009 JASON MICHAEL KERLAN [#183897], 39, of Fresno was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Oct. 17, 2009. The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s finding that Kerlan violated a court order that enjoined him from filing so-called “shakedown lawsuits.â€Together with two other attorneys, Martin Gamulin and Harpreet Brar, Kerlan pursued actions under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), accusing small business owners of technical violations of the law. The Orange County Superior Court had issued an injunction against Brar and his associates prohibiting them from filing UCL cases under certain circumstances.Although Kerlan was aware of the injunction as well as problems Brar had with the State Bar and the Attorney General, he joined a UCL lawsuit against more than 50 liquor store owner defendants and 250 Doe defendants for failing to post proper fee disclosures.After one of the defendants filed a motion to disqualify Brar, the Orange County court issued an order to show cause that included Kerlan. The court said it appeared their lawsuit had “been brought primarily for the purpose of harassing the defendants and extorting pre-appearance settlements.†Instead of responding, Brar dismissed the lawsuit.The State Bar Court, however, found that Kerlan failed to obey a court order, although it also found that he conducted an adequate investigation prior to filing the lawsuit and therefore did not violate that portion of the injunction.It rejected Kerlan’s other arguments that he did not violate the injunction.In mitigation, Kerlan practiced for more than eight years without a discipline record. |