Barry M Orlyn was admitted to the California Bar 14th June 1965, but has since been disbarred. Barry graduated from Northwestern University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameBarry M Orlyn
First Admitted14 June 1965 (58 years, 11 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number37228

Contact

Phone Number323-879-3792

Schools

Law SchoolNorthwestern University SOL (Chicago IL)
Undergraduate SchoolNorthwestern University (Evanston IL)

Address

Current AddressP O Box 45257
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Map

History

17 December 2011Disbarred (12 years, 4 months ago)
Disbarment 10-N-05835
17 July 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 9 months ago)
Ordered inactive 10-N-05835
23 April 2010Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-04575
26 January 2009Inactive (15 years, 3 months ago)
16 May 2007Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-04575 (16 years, 11 months ago)
14 June 1965Admitted to the State Bar of California (58 years, 11 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

April 23, 2010

BARRY M. ORLYN [#37228], 75, of Los Angeles was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a two-year actual suspension and he was ordered to make restitution, prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect April 23, 2010.

The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s finding that Orlyn misappropriated his client’s $9,000 civil judgment when he deposited it into his general account without the client’s permission and then used it to satisfy the client’s outstanding legal fees. Both Orlyn and the bar sought review; Orlyn argued that the disciplinary procedure was barred by the statute of limitations and the bar sought his disbarment. The review department upheld the hearing judge’s recommendations but ordered that Orlyn pay more restitution.

Hearing Judge Donald Miles wrote that for five years, Orlyn “provided quality services to a bad client. His work included winning that client’s case at trial and successfully defending the favorable decision on appeal. (Orlyn) provided these services even though the client was continuing to fail to pay the fees that the client had agreed to pay.” However, when Orlyn finally recovered money on one of the judgments he had secured for the client, “he unilaterally used the money to pay himself.”

Orlyn’s client sold an apartment building, but realized far less from the sale than he anticipated. Orlyn filed suit, but during the course of his investigation, he learned that that one of the principal reasons the proceeds were substantially lower than what the client expected was due to a lien on the apartments by the Internal Revenue Service. Acting on behalf of the Department of Justice, the IRS imposed the lien to collect a fine the client was ordered to pay as a result of a federal conviction for possession of stolen goods. The client had been paying off the fine and believed he owed less than he did.

Orlyn sued the escrow company on behalf of the client and won a subsequent appeal. The client owed him $4,000 for his work on the appeal. Orlyn decided to seek attorney’s fees from the escrow company and presented a bill for more than $12,000. Although he told the client he was billing the escrow company, Orlyn never sought an agreement from the client to pay that amount.

The day the court denied the motion for fees, the escrow company sent Orlyn a check for $9,000. He cashed the check, signing his name and his client’s, and didn’t notify the client. Orlyn made some efforts to collect money still owed to the client, and eventually recommended that he take the matter to a collection agency.

Orlyn kept the full $9,000 and tried to justify his action by claiming the client orally assigned his interest in the escrow judgment to Orlyn. Both the hearing judge and the review department rejected his argument and found that he failed to deposit client funds in a trust account or notify a client of his receipt of funds, and he committed acts of moral turpitude by misappropriating client funds and forging his client’s signature on the check. The review department agreed with Miles that Orlyn “has no insight regarding his unethical behavior.”