Kevin Francis Christof was admitted to the California Bar 4th April 1998, but has since been disbarred. Kevin graduated from Georgetown University Law Ctr.

Lawyer Information

NameKevin Francis Christof
First Admitted4 April 1998 (26 years ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number194684

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number310-451-5984

Schools

Law SchoolGeorgetown University Law Ctr (Washington DC)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of California at Los Angeles (CA)

Address

Current Address340 21st Pl
Santa Monica, CA 90402-2504
Map

History

21 January 2010Disbarred (14 years, 2 months ago)
Disbarment 08-N-13140
6 August 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 7 months ago)
Ordered inactive 08-N-13140
30 April 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 11 months ago)
Ordered inactive 08-N-13140
27 November 2008Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 4 months ago)
Ordered inactive 08-N-13140
23 September 2007Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 6 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 06-J-14347
21 January 2007Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 2 months ago)
Ordered inactive 06-J-14347
30 November 2006Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-J-14347 (17 years, 4 months ago)
18 September 2006Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 6 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
15 September 2006Inactive (17 years, 6 months ago)
17 September 2005Active (18 years, 6 months ago)
16 September 2005Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 6 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
4 April 1998Admitted to the State Bar of California (26 years ago)

Discipline Summaries

January 21, 2010

KEVIN FRANCIS CHRISTOF [#194684], 48, of Santa Monica was disbarred Jan. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Christof failed to file an affidavit, as required by rule 9.20, that he had notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.

He was disciplined in 2007 for misconduct in three client matters in Arizona, where he was also licensed to practice law, including failing to perform competently, communicate and return unearned fees.

September 23, 2007

KEVIN FRANCIS CHRISTOF [#194684], 46, of Santa Monica was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 18 months and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 23, 2007.

In 2006, Christof was suspended for two years by the Arizona Supreme Court for misconduct involving three clients. He bore the burden of establishing that the misconduct would not warrant discipline in California, but he defaulted. The California bar determined that had the misconduct been committed in California, it would have warranted discipline in this state. The State Bar Court found that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or refund unearned fees.

In a marital dissolution, Christof did not file a petition and a default was entered against his client. The day before a scheduled hearing, he filed an answer, but he was not allowed to participate in the hearing because of the default. The client hired a new lawyer, who filed a complaint against Christof with the Arizona bar. A motion to vacate the default was denied because the court found the client did not act promptly. The client paid the new lawyer more than $7,000 in fees and costs.

In the second matter, he was hired to handle modification of a child support order. Although he received the relevant documents from his client, he did not notice that she had been personally served with the petition to modify support. He therefore miscalculated the response date required by the court, which determined that Christof’s request for hearing was untimely.

Christof said he explained to the client that her husband made a procedural error, but claimed she became belligerent and blamed him for developments in the case. When she hired a new lawyer, Christof stopped working on the case and sent the client’s $750 retainer to the new attorney.

Christof was ordered to participate in an ethics program and a law office management program but did not do so.

In the third matter, also a child support/custody case, the client made regular payments until Christof stopped returning her phone calls or responding to e-mails. Christof said it was the client who did not respond to his messages, so he closed her file.