William G. Wells was admitted to the California Bar 14th January 1959, but has since been disbarred. William graduated from University of Illinois COL.

Lawyer Information

NameWilliam G. Wells
First Admitted14 January 1959 (65 years, 4 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number29392

Schools

Law SchoolUniversity of Illinois COL (Champaign IL)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of Illinois (IL)

Address

Current AddressP O Box 799
Santa Monica, CA 90406
Map

History

29 April 2011Disbarred (13 years ago)
Disbarment 98-O-03727
30 October 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 6 months ago)
Ordered inactive 98-O-03727
14 January 1959Admitted to the State Bar of California (65 years, 4 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

April 29, 2011

WILLIAM G. WELLS [#29392], 80, of Santa Monica was disbarred April 29, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The disbarment is the result of a 10-year dispute between Wells and his former longtime secretary, Barbara Dailey, over ownership of a piece of commercial property in Corona. Dailey consistently maintained that she acquired the property as a retirement asset at Wells’ urging. Wells repeatedly and unsuccessfully sued Dailey, asserting that he owns the property.

Dailey eventually complained to the bar, after spending thousands of dollars defending her right to the property and weathering years of litigation. After the bar filed charges against Wells, he engaged in extensive pretrial proceedings, a 24-day trial in which he filed 144 motions. The hearing judge found he committed six acts of misconduct, including moral turpitude for repeatedly lying under oath, and misappropriating more than $88,000 in settlement proceeds from Dailey and an additional $60,000 security deposit from a tenant on the property. He also failed to provide her file, pay her additional funds he owed and he filed an unjust action against Dailey.

Wells appealed the hearing judge’s disbarment recommendation to the State Bar Court review department, which upheld the recommendation and said it was affected by two factors: Numerous trial and appellate courts found that Dailey owns the property, and the hearing judge found that much of Wells’ testimony lacked credibility because it was “evasive, hostile, and inconsistent and implausible.”

Dailey, who was Wells’ secretary in the 1960s, acquired the property, a 3.2 acre commercial parcel that included a dilapidated gas station and restaurant. She said she bought the land at Wells’ urging to secure her retirement. Wells claimed Dailey held the property in trust for his benefit. He managed the property, collected rent and paid expenses until 1998, when his relationship with Dailey deteriorated and she stopped working for him.

She hired a lawyer, asked for copies of contracts and an accounting of all financial matters Wells had handled. Wells said he owned the property.

In seven lawsuits, some filed against Dailey in which Wells acted as her attorney, the courts confirmed Dailey as the property owner. In one case, the court ordered that Dailey should receive $88,029 from the opposing side and a bank transferred more than $118,000 to Wells to satisfy the judgment and his $28,000 fee award. He never gave Dailey any of the funds. Nor did he give her a $60,000 security deposit she was owed.

The review department also found that Wells brought a frivolous lawsuit in his wife's name challenging Dailey’s ownership after the court found that Wells did not own the property.

“Wells engaged in a 10-year vendetta against Dailey,” wrote review Judge Judith Epstein. “He continues the same relentless tactics in this court, filing 144 motions, almost all of which were denied as unmeritorious. . . . Put simply, Wells went beyond tenacity to truculence.”

In mitigation, Wells practiced for 35 years without any discipline prior to 1994, when the court found he misappropriated settlement funds.