David Einar Wulfsberg was admitted to the California Bar 6th June 1967, but has since been disbarred. David graduated from UC Berkeley SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | David Einar Wulfsberg |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 6 June 1967 (57 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 40346 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 562-437-7779 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | UC Berkeley SOL (Berkeley CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Pasadena City Coll (Pasadena CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 38041 Stone Meadow Drive Murrieta, CA 92562 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | 333 W Broadway #306 Long Beach, CA 90802 |
History
| 27 January 2006 | Disbarred (19 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 01-O-00527 |
|---|---|
| 10 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 01-O-00527 |
| 26 May 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 04-H-10237 |
| 16 April 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years ago) Ordered inactive 04-O-12789 |
| 10 March 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-H-10237 (20 years, 1 month ago) |
| 3 February 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 01-O-00527 |
| 19 January 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-12789 (20 years, 3 months ago) |
| 16 September 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 12 April 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-00527 (21 years ago) |
| 7 July 2003 | Public reproval with/duties 01-O-01853 (21 years, 10 months ago) |
| 27 August 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-01853 (22 years, 8 months ago) |
| 6 June 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (57 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
January 27, 2006 DAVID E. WULFSBERG [#40346], 65, of Long Beach was disbarred Jan. 27, 2006, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The State Bar Court found that Wulfsberg committed “serious and continuous†misconduct for at least 10 years, and that he failed to comply with conditions attached to a 2003 public reproval. His misconduct included representing adverse interests without informed written consent, acts of moral turpitude, misappropriation and failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients, promptly pay client funds or return client files, maintain client funds in a trust account or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and his default was entered.Wulfsberg represented Worldwide Executive Leasing Inc., a California franchise of General Motors. At the same time, he represented a family trust and two individuals who served as its trustees. The trustees subsequently were elected as directors of Worldwide; there was only one other director, and he was the sole shareholder.The two family trustees, relying on financial information provided by Wulfsberg, bought a 55 percent common stock interest in Worldwide for $100,000 plus a loan of $100,000 to Worldwide. According to court papers, the financial information Wulfsberg provided the trustees about the company was false.He also maintained possession of the company stock after advising one of the trustees to enter into a stock holding agreement. When the client demanded that the stock be returned, Wulfsberg transferred all of Worldwide’s assets to a corporation solely owned by Worldwide’s original director and shareholder. He did not have the authority to do so.As a result, Worldwide and the family trust suffered damages of at least $708,000. Wulfsberg also received entrusted funds of $638,875, but did not provide an accounting to his clients and allowed his client trust account to fall below the required balance.In another matter, Wulfsberg received disbursements for a client totalling $9,170, but did not inform the client or give him any money.In another case, he failed to respond to motions for summary judgment or to move to set aside a dismissal, depriving his clients of the opportunity to have their claims decided on the merits. He abandoned another client, and in yet another matter he took almost a year to apply to retrieve a $2,500 court bond. In the probation violation matter, he failed to make $11,500 in restitution. |