Danville, CA 94506-4616
2 November 2000 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-PM-11553 (24 years, 6 months ago) |
---|---|
2 June 1999 | Active (25 years, 11 months ago) |
17 July 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 93-O-17373 |
17 March 1996 | Active (29 years, 1 month ago) |
17 January 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 91-C-03459 |
24 February 1995 | Public reproval with/duties 91-C-03459 (30 years, 2 months ago) |
31 January 1995 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-17373 (30 years, 3 months ago) |
1 July 1991 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 91-C-03459 (33 years, 10 months ago) |
23 December 1966 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (58 years, 4 months ago) |
November 1, 2000 The previously ordered probation of JOHN MICHAEL BROWN [#38995], 59, of Pleasanton was extended for six months, effective Nov. 1, 2000. Brown did not comply with the conditions of a 1998 discipline order that he complete at least six hours of continuing education.July 17, 1998 JOHN MICHAEL BROWN [#38995], 57, of Pleasanton was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension. The order took effect July 17, 1998. Both the State Bar and Brown sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge's 1996 decision that found Brown responsible for three disciplinary violations in a single matter. The court found that he failed to perform legal services competently or communicate with his client, and he misrepresented the status of the case to his client.Bar prosecutors asked for longer probation and a lengthier suspension, while Brown sought a reduction of both. The bar court's review department rejected all of the bar's contentions, all but one of Brown's contentions, and upheld the hearing judge.Brown's problems resulted from his representation of a client to handle the client's mother's wrongful death and a medical malpractice action.Brown did not prosecute the lawsuit within four and a half years after filing it. He did not file a request to set a trial date, despite his promises to his client that he would do so. After four letters and numerous telephone calls from the client, Brown finally asked his paralegal to draft and send to the hospital a joint status report. The hospital's attorney refused to sign and return the report because Brown did not cooperate with the hospital's efforts to obtain all his client's mother's medical records.During his client's deposition, Brown agreed that the medical records would be provided. However, he never asked his client to sign a release and never produced the records.Eventually, the superior court dismissed the suit, finding that Brown had not exercised due diligence to expedite the case, and that he had done very little work that was not prompted by the defense.Brown denied responsibility for his failure to prosecute the case, citing fast track problems, placing blame for some of his actions on his paralegal, and blaming the opposing counsel for unjustly refusing to sign and return the joint status report. The review judge rejected all three arguments.The review judge also agreed with the hearing department's findings that Brown has a prior record of discipline (although its importance was somewhat diminished because it occurred contemporaneously with the misconduct in this case), that he committed multiple acts of misconduct, harmed his client and was not candid in his testimony before the bar court.In mitigation, Brown suffered from a serious illness, experienced financial problems, and presented evidence of his good character.The hospital case marked the third time a disciplinary matter against Brown has gone to the bar's review department. An earlier discipline involving Brown's failure to file timely tax returns and properly handle entrusted funds was appealed twice by bar prosecutors. Brown has been attorney since 1966 and had no record of discipline until the 1991 conviction of three misdemeanor counts of violating the Unemployment Insurance Code for failing to pay tax monies withheld from his employees' and his wages.He has continued to pay his taxes, now uses a payroll service, has discontinued practicing as a professional corporation and reviews the financial condition of his office at least quarterly with an accountant. |