Douglass Edward Hubert was admitted to the California Bar 9th January 1962, but has since been disbarred. Douglass graduated from Stanford University Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Douglass Edward Hubert |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 9 January 1962 (62 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 32173 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 831-372-5985 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Stanford University Law School (Stanford CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Occidental Coll (Los Angeles CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 151 Surf Way #11 Monterey, CA 93940 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 17 August 2000 | Disbarred (23 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 98-N-02756 |
|---|---|
| 25 February 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 98-N-02756 |
| 3 December 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 98-N-02756 |
| 13 October 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-N-02756 (24 years, 6 months ago) |
| 31 August 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 96-O-00317 |
| 29 April 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-O-00317 |
| 9 May 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 12 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-00317 |
| 5 September 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-00317 (27 years, 8 months ago) |
| 12 August 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 9 January 1962 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (62 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
August 17, 2000 DOUGLASS EDWARD HUBERT [#32173], 64, of Monterey was disbarred Aug. 17, 2000, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. In two consolidated default proceedings, the State Bar Court found that Hubert failed to meet the requirements of a 1998 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit stating that he notified all clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension from practice, as required by rule 955. Nor did he make restitution to a client, reimburse the Client Security Fund, submit five quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school or notify the bar of his change of address. The underlying discipline was the result of Hubert’s failure to perform legal services competently, adequately communicate with a client, refund unearned fees and return client files and improper withdrawal from employment.April 29, 1998 DOUGLASS EDWARD HUBERT [#32173], 61, of Monterey was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years with conditions including 90 days of actual suspension and a requirement that he make restitution. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 29, 1998. In this decision, Hubert was found culpable of seven counts of misconduct involving one client matter.He abandoned a client, and failed to communicate, return unearned fees and the client’s file, cooperate with the bar’s investigation and keep his bar membership records current.In 1995, Hubert was employed by a client for representation in a divorce matter. A critical part of the case was defending an attempt by the client’s former spouse to have the jurisdiction of child support proceedings transferred from Monterey to Baltimore.When the client’s current wife called Hubert a few months later to check on the status of the case, he had no recollection of it.The client, who was in the military, discovered a few months later that Hubert’s phone had been changed to an unlisted number and he had moved with no forwarding address.In addition, he investigated his court records and found that Hubert had not filed anything in connection with his case.In mitigation, Hubert has been in practice for 34 years with no prior record of discipline.Hubert’s failure to participate in discipline proceedings prior to the entry of default was considered an aggravating factor. His inaction resulted in some harm to the client, and his disappearance and failure to return unearned fees to the client also were seen as aggravating factors.Although the office of the bar’s trial counsel had not included restitution of $1,200 in unearned fees, the hearing department judge included it as a condition of probation. |