Robert Kitay

November 28, 2014

ROBERT NORIK KITAY [#229966], 44, of Carmichael, was suspended from the practice of law for six months and ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. He was also placed on two years’ probation and faces a two-year suspension if he does not comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. The order took effect Nov. 28, 2014. Kitay stipulated to misconduct in two client matters: moral turpitude for making misrepresentations and not transferring assigned settlement funds to a third party, and failing to perform competently. The California Supreme Court, however, returned the stipulation for further consideration as to the appropriate level of discipline. While the hearing judge increased Kitay’s suspension from a recommended 30 days to 75, the Office of Chief Trial sought review. A three-judge review panel recommended a six-month suspension. In February 2008, Kitay replaced another attorney, David Martin, on Kitay’s parents’ tort action. A few months later, Martin sent him a notice of a lien for attorney fees and costs. When Kitay started experiencing financial problems, he assigned his rights to attorney fees to a New York-based company in exchange for $10,000, but concealed the existence of an attorney’s fee lien. After receiving the money, Kitay repeatedly lied to the company about the status of the settlement funds. A few weeks later, he issued $7,500 to himself and $7,500 to Martin to satisfy the lien. Later, he told the company he had received the money but that there was a $30,000 lien from a health insurance company, which was untrue. A company representative tried to contact him repeatedly for a status update, but he did not respond. The State Bar filed disciplinary charges in October 2011. Kitay repaid the money that December, claiming he had been unable to do so earlier because of his bankruptcy. In the other matter, Kitay failed to provide two clients he represented in a personal injury following their car accident with an accurate accounting of their settlement funds and failed to satisfy their insurance company’s reimbursement claim. He also did not inform the clients that the claim existed. In mitigation, Kitay had no prior record of discipline, cooperated with the State Bar, presented evidence of his good character, was experiencing financial difficulties and showed remorse for his wrongdoing.