Corte Madera, CA 94925
21 August 2010 | Disbarred (14 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 09-N-11261 |
---|---|
20 March 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 09-N-11261 |
7 September 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-PM-11072 |
10 May 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 12 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-PM-11072 |
24 October 2006 | Active (18 years, 6 months ago) |
11 August 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 03-O-02167 |
16 September 2005 | Active (19 years, 7 months ago) |
18 June 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 03-O-02167 |
13 April 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-02167 (21 years ago) |
1 October 2000 | Active (24 years, 7 months ago) |
17 August 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-12270 |
25 October 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12270 (25 years, 6 months ago) |
17 February 1999 | Active (26 years, 2 months ago) |
14 May 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 12 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 95-O-14361 |
25 October 1996 | Active (28 years, 6 months ago) |
19 October 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (28 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 95-O-14361 |
27 June 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-14361 (28 years, 10 months ago) |
22 June 1990 | Private reproval, public disclosure 88-0-15438 (34 years, 10 months ago) |
20 December 1989 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 88-O-15438 (35 years, 4 months ago) |
21 December 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (57 years, 4 months ago) |
August 21, 2010 LEWIS R. WIENER [#41186], 69, of Corte Madera was disbarred Aug. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Wiener failed to comply with a rule 9.20 requirement that was part of a 2008 probation revocation order. He filed a declaration stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension after the deadline. He also submitted two quarterly probation reports late.Wiener has a record of five prior disciplines, beginning with a 1990 private reproval. According to a bar investigator, he held himself out to be an attorney in 2009 although he was suspended. In mitigation, Wiener’s wife was in the hospital and his mother was very sick at the time that the Office of Probation filed a motion to revoke probation that was later granted by the State Bar Court. Wiener himself was sick and was not able to file a quarterly probation report.In recommending his disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz said Wiener “completely lacks credibility whenever he testified about not receiving correspondence from the State Bar.†Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.September 7, 2008 LEWIS R. WIENER [#41186], 67, of Corte Madera Probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was placed on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began May 10, 2008. The order took effect Sept. 7, 2008. Wiener was suspended in 2005 but violated the terms of his probation by failing to file one quarterly probation report and submitting nine others late. He also submitted proof of only four of nine required hours of MCLE courses in ethics and law office management.In the underlying matter, he was disciplined for failing to perform services competently, communicate with a client and cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he improperly withdrew from employment.He was disciplined three additional times: in 1990, he was privately reproved for failing to perform legal services competently or communicate with a client and for violating his oath as an attorney; in 1998, he was suspended and placed on probation for failing to perform services competently, communicate with a client or cooperate with a bar investigation; and in 2000 he was again suspended and placed on probation for violating the terms of his probation, practicing while suspended and for failing to complete ethics school.June 18, 2005 LEWIS R. WIENER [#41186], 64, of Corte Madera was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 18, 2005. Wiener prepared the tax returns for a married couple from the late 1970s to 2001. He also joined the couple and four other people in purchasing property that was held by the Shoreline Trust. Wiener served as trustee.In 2000, the couple asked Wiener to liquidate their interest in the trust; he did so and sent them a substantial amount of money but did not provide an accounting, despite their numerous requests.In 2001, he failed to prepare the couple’s tax returns. On April 15, 2002, he advised the couple to seek extensions for the year 2001 and promised to prepare the tax returns. Although the couple called him frequently, he never prepared their tax returns or provided old documents.Wiener stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, return client documents, respond to client inquiries, render accounts or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he improperly withdrew from employment.He has been disciplined three times previously with a 1990 private reproval, a suspension in 1998 for failing to provide competent legal services, communicate with a client or cooperate with a bar investigation, and a suspension in 2000 for violating the terms of his probation.August 17, 2000 LEWIS R. WIENER [#41186], 59, of Corte Madera was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 45-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2000. Wiener stipulated that he failed to comply with the conditions attached to a 1998 discipline order: he did not submit quarterly probation reports, attend ethics school, or stop practicing law during an actual 30-day suspension. Wiener said he did not receive and was unaware of the disciplinary order although it was properly mailed and there is a presumption that he received it. He acknowledged that his failure to comply with probation conditions is considered legally wilful even though he was not actually aware of the order.The 1998 discipline was the result of failing to perform legal services competently, respond to a client’s inquiries or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. He also was privately reproved in 1990 for failure to perform competently or communicate with clients.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigated and acted in good faith.May 14, 1998 LEWIS R. WEINER [#41186], 57, of Corte Madera was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for 18 months on the condition that he is actually suspended for 30 days, effective May 14, 1998. He was ordered to pass the MPRE. In a single probate matter which occurred over a two-year period, Weiner failed to appear at a status conference and file a timely final accounting and petition for distribution of the estate. He recklessly failed to perform competent legal services and adequately communicate with his client.Considered an aggravating circumstance was Weiner's prior record of discipline, a 1990 private reproval. In addition, he failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings.Weiner was given limited credit for not causing his client any lasting harm.In an opinion on review, a State Bar Court review judge disagreed with the hearing department's recommendation that Weiner not be required to make quarterly probation reports. The review judge ordered a quarterly reporting condition. “In this case involving attorney-client misconduct with a recent prior reproval . . . the appropriateness of a quarterly reporting condition of probation is clear.†|