Torrance, CA 90504
28 May 2016 | Disbarred (9 years ago) Disbarment 14-O-04026 |
---|---|
17 December 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 14-O-02720 |
29 October 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 14-O-04026 |
22 June 2015 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-O-04026 (9 years, 12 months ago) |
9 December 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-O-02720 (10 years, 6 months ago) |
10 December 1998 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (26 years, 6 months ago) |
May 28, 2016 RICHARD CLAY MENDEZ [#199927], 44, of Torrance, was disbarred May 28, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and make restitution. In 2011, Mendez set up a satellite office in Long Beach run by non-attorneys who were given the freedom to solicit clients, offer legal opinions and accept and set fees. When Mendez learned of their activities he fired one of the staff members and ultimately shut down the office. His disbarment stems from misconduct in five matters including aiding in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to perform with competence, render an appropriate accounting to his clients, refund unearned advanced fees or deposit advanced costs in his client trust account.Mendez was also disbarred for misconduct in Iowa. It included the authorized practice of law, improper division of fees, neglect, and failing to communicate, turn over a file or refund fees.Mendez was ordered to pay $7,196 plus interest in restitution. In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar.December 17, 2015 RICHARD CLAY MENDEZ [#199927], 44, of Torrance, was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days and ordered to take the MPRE. He was also placed on one year of probation and faces a one-year suspension if he does not comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. The order took effect Dec. 17, 2015. In one client matter, Mendez stopped doing work on a client’s bankruptcy case after she ceased making payments to him and did not take steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to her. The client left multiple messages for Mendez, but he did not respond and did not inform her when he moved his office. In another matter, he stopped working on a client’s case without filing a bankruptcy petition. He also failed to respond to multiple reasonable status inquiries and failed to advise his client that he was no longer working on her case and had moved his office.In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar and had no prior record of discipline. |