Gaspar Roberto Garcia II was admitted to the California Bar 3rd December 2001, but has since been disbarred. Gaspar graduated from UC Davis SOL King Hall.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Gaspar Roberto Garcia II |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 3 December 2001 (23 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 215762 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 916-710-1048 |
Schools
| Law School | UC Davis SOL King Hall (Davis CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | California St University Northridge (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Garcia and Associates, 7 Park Vista Cir Sacramento, CA 95831 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 21 November 2014 | Disbarred (10 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 14-N-02324 |
|---|---|
| 15 September 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 12-O-13163 |
| 5 July 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 14-N-02324 |
| 20 May 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-N-02324 (10 years, 11 months ago) |
| 11 May 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 13-O-11012 |
| 28 August 2013 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-O-11012 (11 years, 8 months ago) |
| 9 August 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 12-O-13163 |
| 3 December 2001 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (23 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 21, 2014 GASPAR ROBERTO GARCIA II [#215762], 40, of Sacramento, was disbarred Nov. 21, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Garcia failed to file a declaration of compliance with rule 9.20 following a 2013 disciplinary order. In mitigation, he entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar. Garcia had two prior records of discipline. The 2013 discipline was a suspension for misconduct in one client matter that included making misrepresentations to a client that constituted moral turpitude, charging and collecting an unconscionable fee and failing to perform legal services with competence, keep a client reasonably informed of major developments in the client’s case or respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries about a case. In 2014, he was suspended again for misconduct in one client matter: failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with the client or cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. August 9, 2013 GASPAR ROBERTO GARCIA II [#215762], 39, of Sacramento, was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years’ probation with an actual one-year suspension and ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Aug. 9, 2013. Garcia stipulated to misconduct in one client matter that included failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to keep a client reasonably informed of major developments in the client’s case, failing to respond to a client’s reasonable status inquiries about a case, making misrepresentations to a client that constituted moral turpitude and charging and collecting an unconscionable fee.In 2007, a couple hired Garcia to represent their company in a discrimination lawsuit against the California Department of Transportation. During the course of the case, Garcia made a number of errors, starting in October 2010 when he filed opposition to a motion for summary judgment seven days late. He later did not inform the court or opposing counsel of his intention to contest the court’s tentative ruling on the motion for summary judgment and arrived late at a hearing, which led to the court sanctioning him $250. After he failed to show up at another hearing, the motion for summary judgment was granted and a judgment was issued against his client.Garcia later agreed to file an appeal but never did, causing the case to be dismissed. He did not inform the client of that fact and made false statements that made it appear as though the case was still viable. In addition, Garcia charged $284,581.83 for legal services — a grossly disproportionate amount — and used the couple’s credit card to pay costs on behalf of another client.In mitigation, Garcia has no prior discipline. |