Riverside, CA 92509
23 October 2008 | Disbarred (16 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-13620 |
---|---|
25 May 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-13620 |
24 February 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-13620 |
25 October 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-13620 (17 years, 8 months ago) |
23 September 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-10523 |
28 April 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 1 month ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-03670 |
6 January 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-10523 |
3 November 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-10523 (18 years, 7 months ago) |
13 August 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-0-03670 |
15 June 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-03670 (19 years ago) |
10 December 1996 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (28 years, 6 months ago) |
October 23, 2008 TODD CLARK DAVIS [#186531], 42, of Riverside was disbarred Oct. 23, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Davis failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court (since renumbered as rule 9.20) by failing to submit an affidavit to the bar court stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.In the underlying discipline, imposed in 2007, Davis had committed four acts of misconduct: failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, refund $2,500 in unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He also was disciplined earlier in 2007 for misleading a client, an act of moral turpitude, and not cooperating with the bar’s investigation.September 23, 2007 TODD CLARK DAVIS [#186531], 41, of Riverside was suspended for two years, stayed, and actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2007. The State Bar Court found that Davis engaged in acts involving moral turpitude in a single client matter and that he failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.A client hired him to obtain a reduction in his child support payments; the matter was urgent because the client’s salary had been greatly reduced. Davis never filed an order to show cause to initiate the proceedings. He lied to the client by saying he was waiting for the court to set a hearing, that the court rejected a first order and he would have to file a second, and that he had sent a copy of various documents the client requested.Davis finally filed an order to show cause but then sought a continuance so he could give notice to the opposing party. The client fired him.When a bar investigator asked for a written response to allegations of misconduct, Davis did not respond.He also was disciplined in April 2007 for four counts of misconduct, including failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.April 28, 2007 TODD C. DAVIS [#186531], 41, of Riverside was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days 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. If the suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect April 28, 2007. In a default proceeding, the bar court found Davis committed four acts of misconduct. In a marital dissolution matter for which he received $2,500 in fees, he performed no legal services, moved from his office without notifying the client and did not return any of the client's many phone calls. The client handled the matter in pro per.The bar court found that Davis failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with a bar investigation. |