William Arthur Hustwit was first admitted to the California Bar 9th January 1969, but is now no longer eligible to practice. William graduated from Loyola Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | William Arthur Hustwit |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 9 January 1969 (55 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 43439 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 702-353-1200 |
| Fax Number | 702-543-7688 |
Schools
| Law School | Loyola Law School (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Rhode Island (Kingston RI) |
Address
| Current Address | 9101 W. Sahara Ave., No 105-2 Las Vegas, NV 89117 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | 7231 S Eastern Ave # B181 Las Vegas, NV 89119 |
History
| 23 July 2017 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (6 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 16-O-15641 |
|---|---|
| 14 September 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 12-O-16830 |
| 1 July 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 1 July 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 10 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 8 August 2014 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 12-O-16830 (9 years, 8 months ago) |
| 12 November 2013 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-16830 (10 years, 5 months ago) |
| 15 July 2008 | Active (15 years, 9 months ago) |
| 1 July 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 9 January 1969 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (55 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
August 8, 2014 WILLIAM ARTHUR HUSTWIT [#43439], 75, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was placed on probation for two years and faces a two-year suspension if he does not comply with the terms of his probation. He was also ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Aug. 8. 2014. Hustwit stipulated to improperly entering into a business transaction with a client, seeking to convince a client to withdraw a State Bar complaint against him and failing to refund unearned fees, perform legal services with competence or keep his client reasonably informed of significant developments in a matter.All of the misconduct occurred with one client. In 2011, Hustwit was hired to represent a woman in a predatory lending lawsuit against her mortgage lender. When he determined he could not file the lawsuit, he withdrew as her attorney. Hustwit refunded $3,000 of the unearned fees but the client was still due $875, which Hustwit did not pay for nearly a year.In August 2011, the client also hired Hustwit to form two limited liability companies on her behalf. Although he filed the initial documentation, Hustwit did not file the initial annual list of managers, a state business license and a $325 fee for each company. On Dec. 1, he was notified the companies were in default but did not tell the client. Hustwit was ultimately informed that the companies were in revoked status but took no steps to resolve the problem.The woman also hired Hustwit in August 2011 and December 2011 to represent her in two separate personal injury cases resulting from automobile accidents. While he was still representing her in the personal injury cases and the predatory lending case, he asked her for a $25,000 loan, to which she agreed. Hustwit did not pay her back when he said he would and instead asked for an additional $10,000. Neither loan was secured by collateral.Hustwit again delayed paying her back before finally admitting in August 2012 that the funds were gone. He said the money had been used toward an investment and that the securities had been stolen.On Sept. 7, 2012, the client’s new attorney filed a civil suit against Hustwit. The same month the client filed a State Bar complaint against Hustwit. That October, Hustwit made an offer to settle the lawsuit that included a provision that the client withdraw the complaint.The agreement was never executed, and another offer was made. Although he had only promised to pay the client $42,500, Hustwit ultimately paid $85,000 to compensate her for the delay in payment and to resolve the lawsuit and any other disputes existing between them.In mitigation, Hustwit entered into a pretrial stipulation with the State Bar, presented evidence of his good character and had no prior record of discipline. |