Santa Barbara, CA 93150-0556
4 March 2004 | Resigned (21 years, 2 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 04-Q-10233 |
---|---|
20 January 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 3 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 04-Q-10233 |
1 January 2004 | Inactive (21 years, 4 months ago) |
21 February 2002 | Active (23 years, 2 months ago) |
1 January 2001 | Inactive (24 years, 4 months ago) |
21 June 2000 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-16820 (24 years, 10 months ago) |
13 May 1994 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 89-O-14370 (30 years, 12 months ago) |
11 February 1992 | Active (33 years, 2 months ago) |
7 June 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (33 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension |
14 August 1990 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (34 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 89-O-14370 |
10 April 1990 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-14370 (35 years, 1 month ago) |
9 January 1962 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (63 years, 4 months ago) |
June 21, 2000 MALCOLM LEVINTHAL [#32209], 73, of Santa Barbara was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 21, 2000. Levinthal stipulated that he practiced law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues.At the time he was suspended in 1995, Levinthal asked the bar to waive payment of fees and costs he owed ($1,300) or postpone payment until the following year, because he did not have enough money to pay what he owed. The bar notified him it could not process his request immediately.At the same time, he faced a court deadline in a matter he had been handling for two years for a long-time client. He filed two documents with the court, which addressed the question of filing the appellate documents while Levinthal was suspended and the court ruled that it was permissible in order to preserve his clients’ rights.Levinthal was disciplined in 1994 for failure to avoid adverse interests and for failing to keep his address current with the bar.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar, no clients were harmed, and he faced financial difficulties at the time of his misconduct. |