Joseph Leib Shalant was admitted to the California Bar 6th June 1967, but has since been disbarred. Joseph graduated from UCLA SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Joseph Leib Shalant |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 6 June 1967 (58 years ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 40303 |
Schools
| Law School | UCLA SOL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Southern Calif (Los Angeles CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 14924 Camarosa Dr Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 13 January 2006 | Disbarred (19 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 01- O-04627 |
|---|---|
| 21 May 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 01-O-04627 |
| 25 September 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-04627 (22 years, 9 months ago) |
| 30 September 1994 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 90-O-12685 (30 years, 8 months ago) |
| 30 July 1993 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-12927 (31 years, 10 months ago) |
| 22 December 1992 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-12685 (32 years, 6 months ago) |
| 22 February 1983 | Public reproval 80-0-00233 (42 years, 4 months ago) |
| 6 June 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (58 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
January 13, 2006 JOSEPH LEIB SHALANT [#40303], 66, of Pacific Palisades was disbarred Jan. 13, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. The State Bar Court’s review department found that Shalant committed an act of moral turpitude and charged and collected an illegal fee. It rejected a hearing judge’s recommendation that Shalant be suspended and placed on probation and instead recommended his disbarment, citing his “extended history of inattention to his fiduciary responsibilities to his clients†and a record of four previous disciplines.Shalant agreed to research the viability of a medical malpractice claim for $5,000 and told the client that if the case were meritorious, he would handle it on a contingency basis. Without consulting the client, he then filed a $10 million lawsuit against the client’s two doctors. Shalant testified at trial he filed the suit to protect the case against the statute of limitations.Several months later, Shalant asked the client if he suffered from the condition claimed as the basis of the lawsuit; the client spent a month researching medical treatises in an effort to verify his claims. Shortly before a scheduled deposition, Shalant told the client he thought he would have difficulty proving his case and to consider dropping it. He also told the client that their original agreement called only for an investigation of the case and that they needed to discuss Shalant’s compensation. The client asked that the deposition be postponed because of the compensation question and because Shalant had not spoken with his doctor.The deposition went forward, and Shalant insisted that the client pay an additional $25,000 non-refundable fee and $10,000 in costs. In subsequent weeks, Shalant and the client bickered over a fee agreement and without signing any documents, the client eventually sent Shalant $25,000 that he deposited in his general account. Several weeks later, the client and Shalant signed an agreement that called for payment of a contingent fee of no more than 40 percent of the gross recovery plus the $25,000. Months later, the client fired Shalant after the lawyer shouted at him several times during a phone conversation. His new lawyer demanded the return of the $25,000, saying the retainer agreement violated MICRA limits. Shalant refused, and to date has not returned any money to the client. When the case settled for $500,000, he demanded additional fees and costs. The client refused Shalant’s demand that the fee dispute go to arbitration.The review department found that by charging both a contingency and a non-refundable fee, Shalant charged an illegal fee. It also found that he committed an act of moral turpitude by insisting on modifying the oral contingent fee agreement 10 months after he filed suit and three days before a scheduled deposition, threatening to withdraw if the client did not pay the higher amount. The manner in which Shalant changed the fee “was abusive of his client†and coercive, the court found.Shalant has been disciplined four previous times, beginning in 1976, in at least nine cases involving 13 clients. The court noted he “has been involved with the State Bar’s disciplinary process for 28 of his 38 years of practice.†Past misconduct included failing to perform legal services competently, communicating with a represented party in a lawsuit, settling personal injury cases after the client was deceased and settling cases without obtaining required court approval. |