San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
31 March 2011 | Disbarred (13 years, 1 month ago) Disbarment 07-O-10742 |
---|---|
8 November 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-O-10742 |
29 June 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-O-10742 (13 years, 10 months ago) |
1 July 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
18 September 2007 | Active (16 years, 8 months ago) |
16 August 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
16 June 1998 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (25 years, 11 months ago) |
March 30, 2011 KEVIN SCOTT NITZEL [#196113], 43, of San Luis Obispo was disbarred March 30, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Nitzel stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in six matters, including abandoning five clients and failing to refund unearned fees or perform legal services competently.The first case was a personal injury matter Nitzel handled on a contingency basis. He received a $25,000 check from one of two defendants and was to use some of the money to finance litigation against the second defendant. He was required to hold about $5,600 in trust for the client. However, after taking his fee and paying one of the client’s doctors, the client could not reach him, he moved his office and disconnected his phone without providing new contact information and he never gave the client her share of the settlement funds.Another client gave him $6,750 to handle a divorce and custody matter. Nitzel promised to have a medical evaluation done on the client’s ex-wife, to obtain the client’s personal property from the ex-wife and to have his child support obligation reduced. Nitzel did no work on the case, moved and changed his phone number and the client was never able to reach him by phone or email. Three personal injury cases were dismissed because he didn’t appear in court, pay filing fees or serve the defendant. Although he filed a response to a petition for dissolution for another client, he stopped communicating with him.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and took steps to demonstrate remorse. |