Matthew Bernard Weber was first admitted to the California Bar 22nd November 1999, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Matthew graduated from UC Hastings COL.

Lawyer Information

NameMatthew Bernard Weber
First Admitted22 November 1999 (25 years, 6 months ago)
StatusNot Eligible to Practice
Bar Number202719

Contact

Phone Number424-258-5291

Schools

Law SchoolUC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of California Santa Cruz (CA)

Address

Current Address1819 Charlie Sifford Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90047-5102
Map
Previous Address335 Delgado St
Santa Fe, NM 87501

History

1 July 2022Not eligible to practice law in CA (2 years, 10 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
25 June 2010Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 11 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-10788
3 December 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 5 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-N-12386
1 July 2008Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 10 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
5 April 2007Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 1 month ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-13676
5 August 2006Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 9 months ago)
Ordered inactive 04-O-13676
19 June 2006Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-13676 (18 years, 11 months ago)
22 November 1999Admitted to the State Bar of California (25 years, 6 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

December 3, 2009

MATTHEW B. WEBER [#202719], 37, of El Segundo was suspended for two years, stayed, and was placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation. The order took effect Dec. 3, 2009.

Weber did not timely comply with rule 9.20, as ordered in a 2006 default disciplinary decision. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension.

He was living in a Salvation Army drug rehab facility at the time, trying to overcome a longstanding drug problem, and was unaware of the requirement and had no computer access. He prepared and mailed the initial compliance declaration as soon as he could access a computer, but it was 37 days late. The affidavit was rejected six days later, but Weber prepared a new declaration the same day.

In mitigation, Weber showed good faith, no clients were harmed, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he took steps to demonstrate remorse.

The underlying discipline was imposed for abandoning clients, commingling entrusted funds, disobeying court orders, not reporting sanctions, fee splitting, committing acts of moral turpitude, and failing to cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation.