Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
3 July 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 10 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
---|---|
5 March 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 07-PM-13018 |
22 October 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-PM-13018 |
24 February 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-13094 |
18 September 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
31 July 2006 | Active (18 years, 9 months ago) |
31 January 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 3 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 03-O-05164 |
21 September 2005 | Active (19 years, 7 months ago) |
16 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
23 June 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-13094 (19 years, 10 months ago) |
24 December 2004 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 03-O-05164 (20 years, 4 months ago) |
12 April 2004 | Active (21 years ago) |
16 September 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 7 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
9 December 1997 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (27 years, 5 months ago) |
March 5, 2008 DMITRY DAVID KRAYEVSKY [#192548], 37, of Pacific Palisades Probation was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for three years and until he proves his rehabilitation and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. Credit is given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Oct. 22, 2007. The order took effect March 5, 2008. He did not timely submit to the State Bar Court psychological or lab reports or proof of attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, as required by a 2007 disciplinary order.In the underlying case, Krayevsky was disciplined for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He also committed seven probation violations.He was given a stayed suspension and placed on probation in 2004 for practicing law while suspended for non-compliance with MCLE requirements.February 24, 2007 DMITRY DAVID KRAYEVSKY [#192548], 36, of Canoga Park was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 24, 2007. Krayevsky stipulated to four counts of misconduct in two matters. The first was a personal injury case that he handled on a contingency fee basis. However, he failed to properly serve the complaint, conduct discovery, designate an expert witness (necessary to establish damages), conduct any trial preparation and allowed the case to be dismissed without notifying his client.He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed of significant developments in their case.In a second matter, he stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2004 discipline order: he submitted two quarterly probation reports late, did not submit four more and completed ethics school late. After receiving notice that the State Bar planned to file charges for probation violations, Krayevsky filed four probation reports late.In the earlier discipline, Krayevsky stipulated to misconduct in six matters, all for practicing law while suspended for non-compliance with MCLE requirements.In mitigation, Krayevsky had a substance abuse problem at the time of the misconduct for which he is being treated.December 24, 2004 DMITRY D. KRAYEVSKY [#192548], 34, of Canoga Park was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation and take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 24, 2004. Krayevsky stipulated to misconduct in six matters, all for practicing law while suspended for non-compliance with MCLE requirements. In each case, he sent a letter on behalf of a client.Krayevsky had completed the requirements but failed to return the compliance card; he said he believed the provider would transmit proof of compliance to the bar.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |