Nicholas Charles Rowley is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 30th May 2002. Nicholas graduated from University of LaVerne.

Lawyer Information

NameNicholas Charles Rowley
First Admitted30 May 2002 (19 years, 4 months ago)
StatusActive
Bar Number220036

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number310-273-1230
Fax Number310-858-1063

Schools

Law SchoolUniv of LaVerne (LaVerne CA)
Undergraduate SchoolPark Coll (Parkville MO)

Address

Current AddressCarpenter Zuckerman & Rowley, 8827 W Olympic Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Map

History

16 June 2012Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 08-O-12104 (9 years, 3 months ago)
8 June 2011Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-12104 (10 years, 3 months ago)
30 May 2002Admitted to the State Bar of California (19 years, 4 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

June 16, 2012

NICHOLAS CHARLES ROWLEY, 35, of Beverly Hills was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect June 16, 2012.

Rowley stipulated to four counts of misconduct in two matters.

He filed a medical malpractice complaint on behalf of a couple, but he left the matter in the hands of others in his office. The partners permitted the case to be dismissed, did not appear on behalf of the clients or serve responses to discovery and they appeared unprepared at a deposition. Rowley also failed to supervise the office manager in order to ensure that a declaration he prepared be filed under seal in order to protect his clients’ interests. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently.

In the second matter, Rowley did not supervise his office manager, who mishandled client funds in Rowley’s absence. Again, he stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently. Rowley and his wife had lost their newborn baby and he spent most of his time with family in Iowa, leaving his California practice in the hands of his law partners and office manager.

In mitigation, Rowley cooperated with the bar’s investigation, submitted evidence of his good character, suffered extreme personal difficulties and had no discipline record, although he was in practice for only five years at the time of the misconduct.