Milton Kerlan Jr was admitted to the California Bar 4th January 1967, but has since been disbarred. Milton graduated from USC Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Milton Kerlan Jr |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 4 January 1967 (57 years, 3 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 39719 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | USC Law School (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Southern Calif (Los Angeles CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 1550 W Ashlan Ave Apt 138 Fresno, CA 93705 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 12 June 2014 | Disbarred (9 years, 10 months ago) Disbarment 12-N-16026 |
|---|---|
| 20 December 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 12-N-16026 |
| 25 February 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 12-N-16026 |
| 11 December 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-N-16026 (11 years, 4 months ago) |
| 29 September 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 12-PM-12844 |
| 16 June 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 11-H-10679 |
| 9 June 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago) Ordered inactive 12-PM-12844 |
| 13 October 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 6 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 04-O-14531 |
| 1 July 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 4 October 2008 | Active (15 years, 6 months ago) |
| 6 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-14531 |
| 10 August 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-H-11827 (16 years, 8 months ago) |
| 5 October 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-14531 (17 years, 6 months ago) |
| 22 October 2003 | Public reproval with/duties 01-O-04925 (20 years, 6 months ago) |
| 19 February 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-04925 (21 years, 2 months ago) |
| 8 January 2001 | Active (23 years, 3 months ago) |
| 8 January 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 3 months ago) |
| 8 July 1998 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 94-O-13646 (25 years, 9 months ago) |
| 24 April 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-13646 (27 years ago) |
| 3 April 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-10619 (28 years ago) |
| 20 December 1995 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-18405 (28 years, 4 months ago) |
| 4 January 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (57 years, 3 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
June 12, 2014 MILTON KERLAN JR. [#39719], 72, of Fresno was disbarred June 12, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Kerlan was disbarred after his default was entered in 2013 for failing to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges against him. Because he did not seek to have the default set aside within 180 days as required under rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure, he was disbarred and the charges against him were deemed admitted.Kerlan violated a court order requiring him to comply with rule 9.20.Kerlan had five prior records of discipline. In 1998, he was suspended for gross negligence in the operation of his law office and failing to cooperate with a State Bar investigation. In October 2003, he was publicly reproved for failing to comply with probation conditions or obey a court order.Kerlan received another suspension in June 2008 for failing to promptly refund unearned advanced fees paid by his client in one client matter, and in another matter failing to comply with reproval conditions and committing moral turpitude by making misrepresentations in probation reports.He was placed on suspension again in June 2012 for failing to comply with the reproval conditions. Later that year his probation was revoked, and he was suspended from practicing law for a minimum of three years after the court found he failed to comply with certain conditions attached to his earlier disciplinary probation.September 29, 2012 The probation of MILTON KERLAN JR., 71, of Fresno was revoked, the previous stay of suspension was lifted and he was suspended for three years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Sept. 29, 2012. Kerlan did not comply with the probation conditions of a 2008 disciplinary order — he submitted two quarterly reports late and did not submit two others, and he did not submit five psychiatric reports.Kerlan has a record of four prior disciplines. The underlying matter involved a failure to perform legal services competently, making misrepresentations and failing to comply with probation conditions of a public reproval. Two other matters involved non-compliance with probation conditions as well. In addition, he stipulated in 1998 to failing to perform legal services competently for five clients.Kerlan did not participate in the revocation proceedings.June 16, 2012 MILTON KERLAN JR., 71, of Fresno was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with a two-year actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect June 16, 2012. Kerlan did not comply with probation conditions attached to two disciplinary orders imposed in 2003 and 2008. The first was a public reproval under which he was ordered to make restitution totaling $5,000 plus interest. He did not make monthly payments of $50 and did not refund the total amount by the deadline. He also did not file five quarterly probation reports or the final report.He was disciplined again in 2008 but did not file quarterly reports on time or provide the probation office with proof of monthly psychiatric treatments. That discipline was imposed both for failing to comply with the public reproval requirements and for not refunding an unearned fee.In mitigation, Kerlan cooperated with the bar’s investigation, no clients were harmed and he had severe financial problems.July 6, 2008 MILTON KERLAN JR. [#39719], 67, of Santa Monica was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on five years of probation and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect July 6, 2008. Kerlan stipulated to misconduct in two cases.In a criminal matter, he was hired to represent an incarcerated individual. The client’s wife made two payments, for $1,000 and $5,000, that Kerlan acknowledged on the back of his business cards. He met with his client and researched his case, but did not file any documents or substitute into the case.The client eventually fired Kerlan and sought a refund of the advance fee. Kerlan refunded $3,000 three years later, after intervention by the State Bar.In the second matter, he stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a public reproval; he did not file quarterly probation reports on time or submit proof of restitution and he made misrepresentations about restitution.In mitigation, he suffered from extreme depression as well as physical problems that contributed to the misconduct. In addition, his home was destroyed in a fire and all his personal belongings were lost, he demonstrated remorse and cooperated with the bar’s investigation.July 8, 1998 MILTON KERLAN JR. [#39719], 57, of Santa Monica was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with conditions including restitution, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 8, 1998. Kerlan stipulated to misconduct in eight consolidated matters: five counts of gross negligence in the operation of his law office, and three counts of failing to cooperate with a bar investigation.Kerlan was, in fact, the victim of a fraudulent law practice scheme created by three friends who appropriated his name.A criminal defense attorney who practiced out of his home, Kerlan accepted an offer to use a friend's office for occasional meetings with clients. The friend also offered to provide secretarial services, when needed, without charge.As a result, the friend gained access to Kerlan's stationary, business cards, retainer agreements and other crucial information about the law practice.He and the other two friends then set up three separate law practices under Kerlan's name. They accepted clients, opened client trust accounts, settled cases and misappropriated client funds, all without Kerlan's knowledge.At the same time, they referred some low-level criminal cases to Kerlan, who continued his practice of interviewing clients in jail or in the interview rooms at the courthouse. He rarely visited his friend's office, where an illegal law practice flourished.Eventually, a criminal investigation was launched and all three men were convicted of insurance fraud.Kerlan was never prosecuted because law enforcement officers concluded he was unaware of his friends' illegal activities. His signature had been forged on documents setting up bank accounts and on other papers. His secretary told the authorities she was instructed by the non-lawyers to maintain separate files which were not to be shown to Kerlan. She became suspicious and notified the authorities when she realized clients were not receiving their funds.Kerlan stipulated to gross negligence in the operation of his law office in relation to four clients who believed they had hired him to represent them. In addition, he was contacted by bar investigators three times, but ignored the inquiries because he did not recognize the clients' names, thought the bar had contacted the wrong attorney and that the mistake would be corrected without his response.Had he responded, his friends' illegal conduct could have been stopped earlier.In mitigation, Kerlan has no record of discipline since his 1967 admission to the bar. He fully cooperated with law enforcement and provided information that led to the conviction of the three friends. He also had agreed to make restitution to one client, reimbursed the Client Security Fund for a claim it paid to another client, and paid a default judgment obtained by the doctor of a third client. Each of these clients was a victim of the friends' criminal activities. |