Long Beach, CA 90807
30 May 2010 | Disbarred (14 years, 11 months ago) Disbarment 08-O-12247 |
---|---|
20 December 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-12247 |
5 September 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-12247 |
15 April 2009 | Active (16 years ago) |
15 January 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-13323 |
30 April 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-13323 (18 years ago) |
21 October 2003 | Public reproval with/duties 02-O-12336 (21 years, 6 months ago) |
2 April 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-14393 (22 years, 1 month ago) |
24 February 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-12336 (22 years, 2 months ago) |
22 July 2002 | Active (22 years, 9 months ago) |
17 April 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years ago) Ordered Inactive/Fee Arb/B&P 6203 |
2 January 1998 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (27 years, 4 months ago) |
May 30, 2010 FRANK HENRY WILLIAMS JR. [#193991], 43, of Long Beach was disbarred May 30, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams failed to comply with an earlier disciplinary order and committed acts of moral turpitude.He was hired by two people to represent a third individual who faced criminal charges. Although he received a $2,000 advance fee, Williams did not appear for his client’s arraignment and the client hired a new lawyer. Williams did not refund the fee although he told the client he had sent the refund. He also didn’t respond to five letters from a bar investigator.Williams was disciplined in 2009, but represented a client in a criminal matter while suspended. He did not notify his client, the prosecutor or the judge of his suspension. As part of the discipline, he was required to comply with rule 9.20 by submitting a declaration with the bar court stating that he had notified pertinent parties of his suspension. He stated under penalty of perjury that he had no clients when the discipline order was filed.He also did not contact the probation office, develop a law office management plan or submit a quarterly probation report. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment and submitting a false declaration involves moral turpitude.Williams was publicly reproved in 2003 for failing to perform legal services competently and unauthorized practice, and the 2009 discipline was imposed for 13 counts of misconduct in six matters, including five counts of failing to perform legal services competently.In recommending his disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, “The serious and unexplained nature of the misconduct and the lack of participation in these proceedings suggest that (Williams) is capable of future wrongdoing and raise concerns about his ability or willingness to comply with his ethical responsibilities to the public and to the State Bar.â€January 15, 2009 FRANK HENRY WILLIAMS JR. [#193991], 42, of Long Beach was suspended for two years, 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. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2009. Williams stipulated to 13 counts of misconduct in six matters. Five counts were the result of his failure to perform legal services competently.In several matters, he was hired, paid an advance fee but then did no work and did not provide a refund. In a criminal matter for which the defendant’s mother paid a $10,000 fee, Williams missed court hearings and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He never refunded any money.The parent of another criminal defendant hired Williams to prepare a writ of habeas corpus, also paying an advance fee of $10,000. Although Williams’ investigator conducted an investigation, Williams did no work. The client fired him, but never heard from Williams.He did not release another client’s file, did not file an opening brief in a client’s criminal appeal, which was dismissed as a result, and he did not properly supervise a suspended lawyer he hired as his paralegal. The paralegal was assigned to obtain a client’s file, but he offered a legal analysis and inquired about substantive issues in the case. Williams took no corrective action.He was privately reproved in 2003. |