Tamela Jayne Murphy was first admitted to the California Bar 25th November 1997, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Tamela graduated from Capital University Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Tamela Jayne Murphy |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 25 November 1997 (26 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 190107 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 310-951-5158 |
| Fax Number | 310-951-5158 |
Schools
| Law School | Capital University Law School (Columbus OH) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Ohio University (Athens OH) |
Address
| Current Address | 2113 W 146th St, c/o Gregory K Corns Gardena, CA 90249-3229 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | c/o Gregory K Corns 2113 W 146th St Gardena, CA 90249 |
History
| 3 December 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-12138 |
|---|---|
| 14 June 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 00-O-14093 |
| 16 September 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 7 August 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-14093 |
| 24 March 2004 | Inactive (20 years ago) |
| 11 December 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-13824 (21 years, 4 months ago) |
| 27 September 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-14093 (21 years, 6 months ago) |
| 25 November 1997 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (26 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 3, 2009 TAMELA J. MURPHY [#190107], 50, of Marina del Rey was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Dec. 3, 2009. Murphy stipulated that she committed 14 violations of probation conditions imposed in a 2004 discipline: she filed eight quarterly reports late, did not provide satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Lawyer Assistance Program and did not provide proof of attendance at ethics school.The underlying discipline was imposed for aiding an individual who was not licensed as a lawyer in California in the unauthorized practice of law and for committing acts of moral turpitude.In mitigation, she cooperated with the bar’s investigation, no clients were harmed and she had financial problems that contributed to her delay in attending ethics school.August 7, 2004 TAMELA J. MURPHY [#190107], 44, of Beverly Hills was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 7, 2004. The State Bar Court found that in two matters, Murphy aided an individual who was not licensed as a lawyer in California in the unauthorized practice of law and that she committed acts of moral turpitude.Murphy formed a partnership with Joseph Giannini, an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but not licensed in California. Giannini has been an activist for reciprocity in admissions and at the time of the disciplinary proceedings against Murphy, he was involved in litigation with the State Bar of California. Upon learning that the bar had a problem with their partnership, Murphy and Giannini terminated it.In the first matter, the Murphy & Giannini law firm was hired in 2000 to represent a client in a personal injury claim. Letters sent to the insurer and signed by Giannini discussed various theories of liability and the application of California law. The claims manager for the insurer believed Giannini was an attorney licensed to practice in California, a belief the bar court found was warranted.The client filed a claim for property damage and personal injury against the insured; the claim was signed by Murphy, who made all court and deposition appearances. The bar court rejected Giannini’s and Murphy’s claims that Giannini was “merely a ministerial servant of (Murphy), carrying out her wishes and command, and doing no more than a law clerk would do.â€The court found that Giannini held himself out as entitled to practice in California, that he provided legal services in the personal injury case and that Murphy was aware of what he was doing.The bar court made similar findings in a second matter in which Giannini & Murphy substituted in as counsel. The court found that Giannini did the work, although Murphy’s name appeared on documents. Giannini also disbursed funds to the client from the firm’s trust account. Murphy was “well aware of Mr. Giannini’s actions and participated in them, condoned them and ratified them,†wrote Judge Alban Niles.The court gave minimal mitigating weight to testimony about Murphy’s good character. Also in mitigation, Giannini and Murphy dissolved their partnership upon learning the State Bar had a problem with it. |