Albert Loeb Boasberg was admitted to the California Bar 18th January 1961, but has since been disbarred. Albert graduated from Yale Law School.

Lawyer Information

NameAlbert Loeb Boasberg
First Admitted18 January 1961 (63 years, 2 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number31205

Contact

Current Email[email protected]
Phone Number650-755-6960
Fax Number650-755-6961

Schools

Law SchoolYale Law School (New Haven CT)
Undergraduate SchoolYale University (New Haven CT)

Address

Current Address300 Park Plaza Dr Ste 6
Daly City, CA 94015
Map
Previous AddressSerramonte Office Plaza
333 Gellert Blvd Ste 207
Daly City, CA 94015

History

4 December 2019Disbarred (4 years, 3 months ago)
Disbarment 18-C-13619
2 July 2019Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 9 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
9 October 2018Not eligible to practice law in CA (5 years, 5 months ago)
Interim suspension after conviction 18-C-13619
23 August 2018Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 18-C-13619 (5 years, 7 months ago)
29 July 2007Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 06-O-13783 (16 years, 8 months ago)
18 January 1961Admitted to the State Bar of California (63 years, 2 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

July 29, 2007

ALBERT LOEB BOASBERG [#31205], 71, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 29, 2007.

Boasberg stipulated to six counts of misconduct in two cases.

In the first, he represented two sisters who tried to evict a tenant from a building they inherited in San Francisco. The clients wanted the matter to go to mediation and the opposing attorney agreed. However, Boasberg never scheduled a mediation and the clients had difficulty contacting him. He did not answer questions faxed to him by one of the clients, who eventually consulted with a real estate broker.

Boasberg told the real estate broker to fax his questions as well, but never responded.

He stipulated that he failed to provide competent legal services, respond to his client’s reasonable status inquiries or promptly refund an unearned fee.

In the second matter, a chiropractor who was going through a divorce hired Boasberg to research a corporation his wife had formed without his knowledge. Boasberg was to dissolve the corporation and advise the chiropractor about his community property rights. He never obtained the corporation papers.

When the client later was notified by the U.S. Patent Office that it could not process a request regarding a patent that he knew nothing about, he again asked Boasberg to look into the matter and to prepare a contract to remove his wife’s name from all his business activities. Boasberg did not respond to the request or provide any documentation to the client indicating he worked on the matter. He did not refund the unearned fee for almost two years.

He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep his client informed about developments in his case or promptly refund unearned fees.

In mitigation, Boasberg had no prior discipline record and he had emotional difficulties.