Los Angeles, CA 90017-1966
18 November 2011 | Disbarred (13 years, 7 months ago) Disbarment 08-O-10975 |
---|---|
6 June 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-10975 |
4 March 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-11622 |
25 October 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-10975 (14 years, 7 months ago) |
25 July 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-14363 |
1 December 2000 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (24 years, 6 months ago) |
November 18, 2011 CHRISTOPHER LaVAR TURPIN [#210177], 39, of Los Angeles was disbarred Nov. 18, 2011, 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 Turpin committed 28 counts of misconduct in eight client matters. Three matters were dismissed because of his failure to perform competently.In a personal injury case arising from a slip and fall, Turpin filed a complaint, but didn’t file a proof of service or a declaration of due diligence. The case was dismissed when he failed to appear at an order to show cause hearing, but he didn’t tell the client. The court granted his motion to set aside the dismissal, but the case was again dismissed when Turpin didn’t show up for a case management conference.When the client learned the case was dismissed by visiting the court, he filed a complaint with the State Bar. More than a year after the dismissal, an associate in Turpin’s office filed another motion to vacate the dismissal, again without telling the client. The motion was denied as untimely.Turpin stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or communicate with his client.In other matters, he failed to perform competently, obey court orders, release a client file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, he improperly withdrew from representation, communicated with a represented party, threatened an opposing party with criminal prosecution in order to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute, and committed acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations to his client.Turpin was disciplined in 2010 for committing acts of moral turpitude and failing to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.July 25, 2010 CHRISTOPHER LaVAR TURPIN [#210177], 38, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect July 25, 2010. As an associate at the Mashney Law Offices, Turpin was assigned a client who claimed a doctor burned his skin with a laser during a tattoo removal procedure. Turpin estimated the case was worth $40,000, settled it for $10,000 but told his law firm the settlement was for $5,000. He prepared a release agreement that promised the client would not file a lawsuit against the doctor for any employment dispute or any medical malpractice dispute. He also asked the doctor to issue two checks, one for $5,000 payable to Mashney Law Offices and the client, and the other for $5,000 payable to Turpin. Firm owner Stephen Mashney, suspicious that the claim settled so quickly for a lesser amount than expected, learned from the doctor that the settlement amount actually was $10,000. Turpin admitted the case settled for $10,000 and reimbursed the firm for half that amount.Turpin left the firm and took several clients with him. Mashney complained to the bar after learning that some of his ex-clients said Turpin took settlement checks without paying them. During a trial before the bar, Turpin testified that he told the doctor he was starting his own law firm and the doctor paid him $5,000 for future legal work. The doctor disputed those claims.The bar court found that Turpin committed acts of moral turpitude by creating a false release agreement, misrepresenting the settlement amount to his boss and converting $5,000 to his own use.Although the bar asked that Turpin be disbarred, the bar court recommended a lengthy suspension instead because he had no record of discipline and he entered into an extensive stipulation with the bar. |