Frank Martin Ennix III was admitted to the California Bar 13th June 1967, but has since been disbarred. Frank graduated from University of Tennessee COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Frank Martin Ennix III |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 13 June 1967 (58 years ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 40459 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 510-654-5525 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 510-654-1178 |
Schools
| Law School | University of Tennessee COL (Knoxville TN) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Fisk University (Nashville TN) |
Address
| Current Address | Law Ofc Frank M Ennix, 576 10th St Oakland, CA 94607 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 23 February 2012 | Disbarred (13 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 08-O-10991 |
|---|---|
| 7 October 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-10991 |
| 21 September 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 9 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 10-Q-08405 |
| 10 August 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 10 months ago) Actual Suspension Delayed 06-O-12235 |
| 25 July 2010 | Probation with conditions 06-O-12235 (14 years, 10 months ago) |
| 4 March 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-10991 (15 years, 3 months ago) |
| 26 November 1994 | Active (30 years, 6 months ago) |
| 16 August 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (33 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 88-O-13283 |
| 15 June 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (34 years ago) |
| 6 February 1990 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-11049 (35 years, 4 months ago) |
| 25 September 1989 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 88-O-13283 (35 years, 9 months ago) |
| 17 July 1979 | Active (45 years, 11 months ago) |
| 18 May 1979 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (46 years, 1 month ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 76-6-00101 |
| 13 June 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (58 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
February 23, 2012 FRANK MARTIN ENNIX III, 76, of Oakland was disbarred Feb. 23, 2012, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Ennix stipulated to six counts of misconduct in four matters, including failure to submit on time a rule 9.20 compliance declaration stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He did not submit a corrected declaration, as ordered by the court. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.In a personal injury case, he represented three passengers and the driver of a car involved in an accident. The parties had potentially conflicting interests but Ennix did not obtain their informed written consent.In another personal injury case, Ennix’s paralegal sent a demand letter for $24,000 on behalf of his client. Another paralegal told the client the case would settle soon. When the insurer offered to settle for $1,500, Ennix said he did not understand that a monetary offer had been made. He did not transmit the offer to the client or respond to it and the insurer closed the file. Ennix stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed of significant developments in his case.When he settled another personal injury case, he told the client he would take care of her medical bills. He did not do so, however, and the matter went to collection. An attempt to pay the client’s doctor failed because he wrote a check against insufficient funds, although he provided a cashier’s check for $1,000. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or promptly pay out client funds.Ennix has been suspended three times previously. In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.July 25, 2010 FRANK MARTIN ENNIX III [#40459], 75, of Oakland was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an actual 18-month 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 July 25, 2010. The State Bar Court found that Ennix committed three acts of professional misconduct: He failed to perform legal services competently or communicate with clients and he improperly tried to settle a potential claim the client may have had against him.In one matter, Ennix filed suit against Oakland and some of its police officers for police brutality; the case was moved from superior court to federal court. He failed to file and serve any pre-trial documents by three court-ordered deadlines, but also admitted that he never prepared any of the documents because he expected the matter to settle. He also missed a pre-trial conference and an order to show cause hearing.Ennix presented his client with a written agreement stating that he would pay the client $5,000 in exchange for the client agreeing to have his case dismissed. Ennix did not inform the client in writing that he could seek independent legal advice and the client felt coerced by the circumstances. He knew Ennix had failed to appear at a hearing and was concerned about Ennix’ lack of preparation on the case.In addition, the client had outstanding medical bills related to his claims against Oakland and the police and asked Ennix to pay the bills. Ennix said he would “take care of†his client’s doctors, physical therapy and mental assistance bills related to the personal injury claim.In a second matter, Ennix stipulated that he failed to communicate with a slip-and-fall client. He did not file suit and did not respond to his client’s phone calls and letters.Ennix was disciplined twice previously, in 1979 and 1991. |