Los Angeles, CA 90029
18 November 2015 | Disbarred (8 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 12-N-16765 |
---|---|
27 June 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 12-N-16765 |
2 July 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
12 January 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 12-N-16765 |
30 October 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-N-16765 (11 years, 6 months ago) |
4 September 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 10-O-03748 |
13 June 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 11-PM-19622 |
24 February 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 11-PM-19622 |
12 December 2011 | Active (12 years, 4 months ago) |
28 July 2011 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 10-O-03748 (12 years, 9 months ago) |
1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
28 September 2010 | Active (13 years, 7 months ago) |
1 September 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 8 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
1 October 2004 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (19 years, 7 months ago) |
November 18, 2015 VICTOR MARCEL COMSTOCK [#232078], 45, of Los Angeles, was disbarred Nov. 18, 2015 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. A State Bar Court hearing judge initially recommended Comstock be suspended for failing to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation by not filing a compliance affidavit as required by rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The State Bar appealed and a three-judge review court panel concluded Comstock should be disbarred, noting his case “illustrated the perils faced by an attorney who disregards the most basic of discipline responsibilities.â€Comstock had two prior records of discipline. In 2011, he was suspended for failing to perform legal services competently and not replying to a bar investigator’s inquiries. In 2012, he was suspended for failing to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation.June 13, 2012 The probation of VICTOR MARCEL COMSTOCK, 42, of Los Angeles was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for one year and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect June 13, 2012. Comstock violated the terms of a 2011 probation by failing to contact the State Bar probation office or submit his first quarterly report. The underlying discipline was imposed for improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of one matter.July 28, 2011 VICTOR MARCEL COMSTOCK [#232078], 41, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 28, 2011. Comstock stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently after being hired to try to win a new trial for a criminal defendant who was sentenced to 108 years to life in prison. Although he filed a timely notice of appeal, he did no work on the appeal and took no action to have himself removed as attorney of record. When the appeal was dismissed, Comstock did not inform the client to take any steps to reinstate the appeal.Although Comstock filed the notice of appeal solely to preserve the client’s rights, he never advised the client that he didn’t intend to represent him or that he needed to hire a new lawyer. He did not respond to letters from the California Appellate Project, which successfully had the appeal reinstated. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently. He also did not reply to a bar investigator’s inquiries.In mitigation, Comstock has no prior discipline record and cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |