Quincy N Hoang was admitted to the California Bar 4th June 2002, but has since been disbarred. Quincy graduated from U of San Francisco SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Quincy N Hoang |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 4 June 2002 (21 years, 10 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 219421 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | U of San Francisco SOL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Berkeley (Berkeley CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 908 Cape Morris Pl San Jose, CA 95133-1140 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 14 October 2011 | Disbarred (12 years, 6 months ago) Disbarment 08-N-13737 |
|---|---|
| 30 April 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-N-13737 |
| 14 April 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 09-Q-0 |
| 11 April 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years ago) Ordered inactive 08-N-13737 |
| 6 November 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-13740 |
| 3 November 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-N-13737 (15 years, 5 months ago) |
| 9 February 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 06-O-12856 |
| 10 December 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-O-13740 (16 years, 4 months ago) |
| 14 September 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-O-12516 (16 years, 7 months ago) |
| 1 May 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-12856 |
| 30 November 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-12856 (17 years, 4 months ago) |
| 4 June 2002 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (21 years, 10 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 14, 2011 QUINCY N. HOANG [#219421], 40, of San Jose was disbarred Oct. 14, 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 Hoang violated rule 9.20 by failing to file a compliance declaration stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his 2008 suspension. The Supreme Court rejected his resignation. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.He was disciplined twice in 2008. In the first matter, the bar court found that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or refund $1,400 in unearned fees. In the second matter, the court found he committed 11 acts of misconduct in four matters, including practicing law while suspended and failing to refund unearned fees or perform legal services competently.November 6, 2008 QUINCY N. HOANG [#219421], 37, of San Jose was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Nov. 6, 2008. Hoang stipulated to 15 counts of misconduct in four matters.In two cases, he appeared in court while suspended. In one of the matters, he requested a continuance but did not inform the court that the request was based on his suspension from practice. When the court asked if he was allowed to practice, Hoang responded, “I believe I am.†He provided an incorrect bar number to the judge.In another matter, a client hired Hoang to both prepare a power of attorney for his wife and to mediate a fee dispute the client had with a lawyer in Florida. Hoang prepared the power of attorney, but it was deficient; he took no action to correct it. Although he contacted the client’s Florida lawyer asking for an accounting of his fees and rejecting a proposed settlement offer, he did nothing further.He did not respond to his client’s e-mails or phone calls seeking updates and when the client asked for a refund of his fee, Hoang did not respond.A third client hired Hoang to obtain a child support modification and paid a $1,500 advance fee. The fee agreement indicated the fee would be billed against Hoang’s hourly rate.About a month after being hired, Hoang provided some information to the client and asked how he wanted Hoang to proceed. Hoang also sent a bill for $240. About 16 months later, Hoang provided an update on the case, just prior to a hearing. When Hoang failed to appear, the client hired a new lawyer and asked for a refund of his fees.Hoang did not respond to another refund request, so the client hired a process server to give Hoang a written request for a refund. The process server found that Hoang had been evicted from his office.Hoang stipulated that he practiced while not entitled, committed acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations to the court, failed to perform legal services competently, respond to a client’s requests for information, refund unearned fees, apprise a client of his new address or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.He was disciplined in 2008 after the bar court found, in a default proceeding, that he committed four acts of misconduct in a criminal case — he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, return unearned fees or obey a court order.In mitigation, Hoang was involved in a bitter break-up with the mother of his child and he was a victim of domestic abuse and obtained a court order of protection.February 9, 2008 QUINCY N. HOANG [#219421], 36, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 75 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. If the suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Feb. 9, 2008. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Hoang committed four acts of misconduct in a criminal case in which he represented an individual charged with driving under the influence — he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, return unearned fees or obey a court order.Hoang told the client not to appear in court because he was charged with a misdemeanor. Hoang sent another attorney to one hearing and then missed two subsequent hearings, which led to a bench warrant for his client’s arrest. The court withdrew the warrant when Hoang appeared and accepted responsibility for not appearing. Without telling the client about the arrest warrant, Hoang wrote to the client and instructed him to appear at another hearing. He also said the court suggested he find a new lawyer.The client did not receive the letter until after the hearing; neither he nor Hoang appeared and the court issued another bench warrant. Hoang also did not appear at an order to show cause hearing. |