Yefim Mandel Shlionsky was admitted to the California Bar 27th October 2005, but has since been disbarred. Yefim graduated from Southwestern University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Yefim Mandel Shlionsky |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 27 October 2005 (19 years, 6 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 237892 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 310-776-0984 |
Schools
| Law School | Southwestern University SOL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Southern Calif (Los Angeles CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 6639 Colgate Ave Los Angeles, CA 90048 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 9 December 2011 | Disbarred (13 years, 4 months ago) Disbarment 10-N-06479 |
|---|---|
| 25 June 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 10-N-06479 |
| 29 September 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 10-N-06479 (14 years, 7 months ago) |
| 1 May 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-O-13804 |
| 1 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 1 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 10 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 27 October 2005 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (19 years, 6 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
May 1, 2010 YEFIM MANDEL SHLIONSKY [#237892], 32, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and he was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect May 1, 2010. Shlionsky stipulated that he committed four acts of misconduct in an immigration matter in which he was hired to obtain an employment visa. He never filed the visa application and he converted two money orders to his own use, changing the payee of one. Throughout the course of the one-year matter, the client was at risk of deportation.Shlionsky stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and by using money provided by the client for personal purposes, he committed acts of moral turpitude. |