Arthur Gootkin Lawrence was first admitted to the California Bar 10th June 1959, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Arthur graduated from Southwestern University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameArthur Gootkin Lawrence
First Admitted10 June 1959 (66 years ago)
StatusNot Eligible to Practice
Bar Number29554

Contact

Phone Number310-228-8528

Schools

Law SchoolSouthwestern University SOL (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolYeshiva University (New York NY)

Address

Current Address890 W 15th St Trlr 33
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Map

History

8 August 2013Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-12696
3 July 2012Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 11 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
28 October 2011Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 10-O-10811 (13 years, 7 months ago)
1 July 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 11 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
10 July 2009Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 11 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-11145
26 March 2009Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-O-12696 (16 years, 2 months ago)
18 September 2007Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 9 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 01-O-01343
15 May 2007Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-O-11145 (18 years, 1 month ago)
17 June 2006Active (19 years ago)
18 May 2006Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 1 month ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 01-O-01343
21 September 2004Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-11715 (20 years, 9 months ago)
21 October 2003Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-01343 (21 years, 8 months ago)
2 April 1992Active (33 years, 2 months ago)
10 December 1981Not eligible to practice law in CA (43 years, 6 months ago)
Ordered inactive
10 June 1959Admitted to the State Bar of California (66 years ago)

Discipline Summaries

August 8, 2013

RTHUR GOOTKIN LAWRENCE [#29554], 82, of Newport Beach, was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on four years’ probation with a three-year actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was also ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Aug. 8, 2013.

A three-judge review panel found that Lawrence had failed to maintain client funds in trust, committed moral turpitude, commingled personal funds in his client trust account, and had failed to comply with the conditions of a 2009 disciplinary order. Noting that Lawrence’s serious medical problems were compelling mitigation, a State Bar hearing judge initially recommended that Lawrence receive an 18-month suspension. The State Bar sought review, asking that Lawrence be disbarred.

In one of matters that led to his discipline, Lawrence repeatedly dipped into his client trust account, allowing it to drop below the required balance. In another client matter, he commingled funds by waiting more than five months after receiving a client’s settlement money to withdraw all of his attorney fees from his client trust account.

Lawrence’s failure to comply with the conditions of his probation had largely to do with ongoing medical problems. For nearly 60 years, Lawrence has suffered from a neuropathic disorder called “tic douloureux,” which causes episodes of extreme and debilitating facial pain. In 2010, his tic douloureux disorder worsened and he needed to have surgery. As a result, he submitted delinquent quarterly reports to probation and did not attend Ethics School. Lawrence then suffered a traumatic brain injury in 2010 which led him to file three other quarterly reports late and fail to file his final report.

Lawrence has three prior disciplines: a 1981 private reproval that led to an inactive status for 10 years; a 30-day suspension in 2006 and a 2009 suspension for violating the terms of his probation. Although State Bar standards can call for disbarment of an attorney who has had two or more disciplines, the compelling mitigation in Lawrence’s case predominates, according to the panel.

“Lawrence’s medical problems over the years have been severe and extensive. He has been ineligible to practice law for roughly 15 of the last 30 years due to his extreme physical disabilities,” the panel wrote. “While they do not excuse Lawrence’s ethical lapses, the compelling circumstances clearly predominate and compel us to look beyond a strict application of the standard.”

July 10, 2009

ARTHUR GOOTKIN LAWRENCE [#29554], 78, of Rosemead was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect July 10, 2009.

The State Bar Court found that Lawrence did not comply with the terms of a 2006 probation. He did not submit four quarterly reports on time, file some certified public accountant reports, join the Law Practice Management and Technology Section or make restitution.

In mitigation, Lawrence made good faith efforts to comply with probation conditions, he filed for bankruptcy and he suffered from a serious disabling illness.

He has been disciplined twice previously. In the underlying matter, he was suspended and placed on probation for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he commingled funds. He also was privately reproved more than 20 years ago.

May 18, 2006

ARTHUR GOOTKIN LAWRENCE [#29554], 75, of Rosemead was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 18, 2006.

Lawrence stipulated to misconduct in three cases.

A client paid Lawrence $2,500 in advance fees to represent him with family law problems. Lawrence attended a hearing that was continued but did not appear at the later hearing.

The client asked for a refund of his retainer, his file and a status update. Although Lawrence had received a temporary support order that meant garnishment of the client’s wages, he did not inform the client or tell him immediate action might be needed.

The client’s wages were garnished in the amount of $2,200 a month to pay current and past due child support.

In another matter, Lawrence attached two declarations on which he had printed the names of two parties on the signature lines in a reply to a motion for summary judgment.

He also wrote numerous checks against insufficient funds in his client trust account and commingled funds in the account.

Lawrence stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep a client informed of significant developments in a case, properly maintain his client trust account or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

He was privately reproved twice in 1982.