Bolden Bruce Kittrell was first admitted to the California Bar 21st December 1967, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Bolden graduated from UC College of the Law, San Francisco.

Lawyer Information

NameBolden Bruce Kittrell
First Admitted21 December 1967 (56 years, 3 months ago)
StatusNot Eligible to Practice
Bar Number40896

Contact

Phone Number310-891-1190
Fax Number310-378-9923

Schools

Law SchoolUC College of the Law, San Francisco (San Francisco CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCalifornia St University Long Beach (CA)

Address

Current Address25202 Crenshaw Blvd Ste 200
Torrance, CA 90505
Map

History

18 September 2006Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 6 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
23 July 2004Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 8 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 95-O-14321
25 June 1996Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-14321 (27 years, 9 months ago)
21 December 1967Admitted to the State Bar of California (56 years, 3 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

July 23, 2004

BOLDEN BRUCE KITTRELL [#40896], 64, of Torrance was suspended for five years, stayed, and was placed on five years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and until he makes restitution and proves his rehabilitation. He also was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 23, 2004.

The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings but reversed his recommendation that Kittrell be disbarred. The hearing judge found that Kittrell entered into a business transaction with an unsophisticated client who lost her life savings, money she had intended to use to buy a house. The judge also found he committed acts of moral turpitude, and after the client won a civil fraud judgment against him, did not report entry of the judgment to the bar.

Kittrell’s client was a 55-year-old naturalized citizen who completed the equivalent of a 12th-grade education in Jamaica. She had minimal prior investment experience, was interested in buying a condominium and was looking for an investment of her life savings of $68,000.

Kittrell owned Bolden Realty, a company he used to do business with equity holders in real estate who could not qualify for conventional bank loans. Although none of his investors lost money for many years, the recession of the early 1990s resulted in problems with trust deeds and Kittrell’s home was foreclosed and sold in 1994.

He first met with the client in 1991 in order to provide legal advice about the tax consequences of a family law settlement. At the same meeting, Kittrell offered the woman an investment in a trust deed in a dance studio that had encumbrances totaling nearly $1.5 million. The property produced annual income of $70,000 and its annual debt service on the first and second of three trust deeds was $100,000. Kittrell had invested in the property, raising $600,000 from investors.

He offered the property for $1.95 million, received one bid below $1 million and tried unsuccessfully to refinance the property. When a third trust deed note for $450,000 came due, Kittrell was unable to refinance or sell the property, so he extended the note’s due date a year and increased its amount to $550,000. In addition, the holder of the first trust deed filed a notice of default.

Kittrell offered his client an investment in the studio and told her it would pay 14 percent interest, that there would be monthly payments and that her principal would be repaid in three to four months. He did not tell her that the property’s debt service exceeded its income and that he did not have a current written appraisal.

A trust declaration and beneficiary agreement he sent the client did not state that the investment was a third trust deed, did not cite the risks of the transaction and misstated the amount of the note as $450,000 rather than $550,000. The papers also set the deadline for repayment of principal a year later than the client understood. Nonetheless, she signed the papers without fully understanding the nature of the investment. She made her funds payable to the realty company but she was unaware that Kittrell was the owner.

The client opened three separate escrow accounts to buy property; all had to be cancelled when Kittrell did not return her investment money. He made 11 interest payments totaling just over $7,000. The client spent $2,300 on escrow fees and storage charges for her personal property.

The client eventually sued Kittrell and won damages of $217,235, plus interest and costs of $61,000. The verdict found that Kittrell’s conduct involved malice, oppression or fraud. The court of appeal upheld the verdict, finding that Kittrell lived on an eight-acre equestrian estate appraised at $2.9 million, owned an airplane worth $125,000 and an Arizona ranch valued at $700,000 and leased a Mercedes and a Lincoln. Although Kittrell conceded that he made several hundred thousand dollars in deposits into his bank account, he testified that his assets were encumbered for more than their value.

He contended that his assets have been foreclosed or sold in bankruptcy, his law practice income yielded about $100,000 in 1996 and 1997, and he claims he paid the client $18,200 and that his insurer paid her as well.

The hearing judge found, and the review department agreed, that Kittrell entered into a business transaction with his client that was not fair and reasonable and that he failed to advise the woman to seek independent legal advice. The judge also determined that the transaction placed Kittrell in a position adverse to his client.

The review department rejected Kittrell’s arguments that the hearing judge’s findings should be reversed. “Sadly, this case stands with too many others as an example of an attorney’s preference of his personal interests in manifest disregard of the interest of his client,” wrote review Judge Ronald Stovitz.

In mitigation, Kittrell practiced for 24 years without a record of discipline.