Aaron Michael Ellis was admitted to the California Bar 28th May 2007, but has since been disbarred. Aaron graduated from Whittier Coll SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Aaron Michael Ellis |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 28 May 2007 (16 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 248862 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 562-248-6660 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Whittier Coll SOL (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Whittier Coll (Whittier CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 13502 Whittier Blvd, Ste H # 133 Whittier, CA 90605 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 25 October 2013 | Disbarred (10 years, 6 months ago) Disbarment 12-O-14087 |
|---|---|
| 29 April 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years ago) Ordered inactive 12-O-14087 |
| 26 December 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-14087 (11 years, 4 months ago) |
| 27 September 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 11-O-18098 |
| 26 September 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 7 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 12-Q-16707 |
| 28 May 2007 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (16 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 25, 2013 AARON MICHAEL ELLIS [#248862], 33, of Whittier was disbarred Oct. 25, 2013 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Ellis stipulated to misconduct in three client matters including committing an act of moral turpitude, violating rule 9.20, filing a false 9.20 affidavit and failing to perform competent legal services, take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to his client, or render appropriate accounts to a client.In one matter, Ellis represented a client in an uncontested divorce case, filing paperwork with the court to complete the dissolution case, which was returned due to several deficiencies. Ellis told the client he had fixed the problem when he hadn’t, then closed his law practice in March 2012 without having completed the case. Ellis also failed to provide the client with an accounting for the fees he received.Ellis also committed misconduct while representing the co-owners of a construction company in a civil case filed against them. Ellis failed to tell his clients about a pivotal court hearing in the case, even though their testimony was critical to the defense, and the trial had to go on without them. The court ultimately entered a judgment against the owners totaling $17,391.97.Ellis also did not meet the requirements of a 2012 disciplinary order because he did not comply with rule 9.20. The underlying discipline, for which he received a six-month actual suspension, was for 13 acts of misconduct in five client matters between August 2011 and February 2012. It included failures to refund unearned fees, account for client funds, perform legal services competently or communicate with his clients.September 27, 2012 AARON MICHAEL ELLIS, 32, of Whittier was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual six-month suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Sept. 27, 2012. Ellis stipulated to 13 counts of misconduct in five matters. Three of the matters involved bankruptcies for which his clients paid advance fees. He filed one petition that was dismissed because he did not file a required certification. He did not notify his client. He did not file another petition at all and never provided an introductory document packet to another client who paid a $500 advance fee. Ellis did not refund unearned fees, account for client funds, perform legal services competently or communicate with his clients.He did not account for an $1,800 fee another client paid for a child custody matter. Ellis said he could no longer handle the case but did not refund any money to the client. In another child custody and divorce case, Ellis did not respond to his client’s status request, account for or refund an unearned fee, and he did not ensure that judgment was entered in a child-sharing agreement. In that case, time was of the essence because Ellis’ client was moving to Illinois, but Ellis did not file a petition for paternity although the client provided the necessary documentation. He later tried to submit a judgment to the court consisting of a paternity agreement, but it was rejected. The client hired a new lawyer.In mitigation, Ellis agreed to settle the matter prior to the filing of disciplinary charges. |