Peter Tran Nguyen is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 24th July 2000. Peter graduated from Rutgers-The State University-Newark.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Peter Tran Nguyen |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 24 July 2000 (23 years, 9 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 208100 |
| Sections | Worker's Compensation |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Phone Number | 714-245-9400 |
| Fax Number | 657-232-1179 |
Schools
| Law School | Rutgers-The State University-Newark (Newark NJ) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 856 S Robertson Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90035-1601 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | 11271 Ventura Blvd #262 Los Angeles, CA 91604 |
| Previous Address | 11271 Ventura Blvd # 262 Studio City, CA 91604-3136 |
| Previous Address | Law Office of Robin Jacobs, Inc., 3600 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1605 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2620 |
| Previous Address | Kaeni Law Group, 1516 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 |
History
| 16 April 2010 | Active (14 years ago) |
|---|---|
| 17 December 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-N-12111 |
| 22 May 2008 | Active (15 years, 11 months ago) |
| 22 February 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-14059 |
| 30 April 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-14059 (17 years ago) |
| 9 December 2005 | Active (18 years, 5 months ago) |
| 16 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 16 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 24 July 2000 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (23 years, 9 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 17, 2009 PETER TRAN NGUYEN [#208100], 37, of Studio City was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 120-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Dec. 17, 2009. Nguyen stipulated that he did not comply with rule 9.20 as required by a 2008 probation. He did not timely file with the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. The underlying discipline was imposed because of Nguyen’s failure to perform legal services competently or keep his clients reasonably informed and for improper withdrawal from employment in three separate matters.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he was mistaken about how to comply with rule 9.20.February 22, 2008 PETER TRAN NGUYEN [#208100], 35, of Studio City was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Feb. 22, 2008. Nguyen stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in three matters for the same client. He was suspended in 2005 for failing to pay his bar dues or comply with MCLE requirements. At the time, he was handling the three matters in question.He stopped working on the cases without notifying his clients or opposing counsel, thus withdrawing from employment improperly. He also failed to keep his client informed of developments in the cases, and in two of the matters did not respond to his status inquiries.In one case, Nguyen did not respond to various motions or appear at trial, where the court entered a $9,163 judgment against his client. He did not apply for relief from the judgment.In a second matter, the court entered a default judgment against Nguyen’s client in the amount of $13,990. In the final matter, a judgment of more than $30,000 was entered against the client.When the client finally learned about Nguyen’s suspension, Nguyen said he had been communicating with opposing counsel and had secured satisfactory outcomes for all three cases. He referred to his inactive period of practice as a “procedural defect.†Although the client called him daily, he did not return any of the phone calls.In mitigation, Nguyen said his law partner was diagnosed with a brain tumor and he was overwhelmed by having to manage the law firm alone. |