James David Hollister was admitted to the California Bar 26th June 1969, but has since been disbarred. James graduated from Lincoln University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | James David Hollister |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 26 June 1969 (54 years, 10 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 44244 |
Contact
| Phone Number | (925) 454-0690 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | (925) 454-0690 |
Schools
| Law School | Lincoln University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Oregon (Eugene OR) |
Address
| Current Address | 3998 East Ave Unit J Livermore, CA 94550 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 18 November 2015 | Disbarred (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 1 July 2009 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (14 years, 10 months ago) |
| 10 March 2009 | Active (15 years, 1 month ago) |
| 2 January 2009 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (15 years, 3 months ago) |
| 18 October 1996 | Active (27 years, 6 months ago) |
| 12 August 1996 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (27 years, 8 months ago) |
| 5 September 1995 | Active (28 years, 8 months ago) |
| 31 July 1995 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (28 years, 9 months ago) |
| 26 June 1969 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (54 years, 10 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 17, 2009 JAMES DAVID HOLLISTER [#44244], 70, of Livermore was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and he was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Oct. 17, 2009. Hollister stipulated to 30 counts of misconduct in six matters, including failures to perform legal services competently or keep clients informed of developments in their cases, he shared legal fees with a nonlawyer, assisted in the unauthorized practice of law and he committed acts of moral turpitude.Five of the matters involved immigration cases for people who hired Albert Villela, a nonlawyer who had a business relationship with Hollister. The clients believed Villela was an attorney.In each case, Villela would pay Hollister $225 to attend a master hearing, $560 for an individual hearing and $400 to file an appeal and opening brief on appeal. Hollister often did not meet the client prior to any hearing.In one matter, for example, a couple hired Villela in 2001, ultimately paying him $5,000. Despite their numerous phone calls, the clients did not meet Hollister until March 2005, when they asked about a requirement that they provide fingerprints for their immigration matter. At the time, fingerprints were valid for 15 months and Hollister did not advise the clients that the prints they provided were no good because they were two years old. Their application for relief from removal was deemed abandoned because they did not submit new fingerprints. The clients were ordered deported.Another client, a Mexican citizen, paid Villela $9,425 to help him obtain legal residency. Although the client had left the U.S. for less than 90 days to get married, the immigration materials indicated he was out of the country for more than 90 days, an absence that creates a gap in the 10 years of continuous presence necessary to qualify for cancellation of removal. The client was not advised that the dates were incorrect or that the consequences were serious.The client also was employed and rented a residence during the period in question, but Hollister never called the individuals who could have testified as to the client’s presence in the country.Prior to four appearances at an immigration hearing, Hollister did not meet with the client.The immigration court denied the client’s application for cancellation of removal and although Hollister appealed, he did not talk with the client nor did he submit evidence that the information provided with the original materials was incorrect. An appeal was unsuccessful but Hollister did not notify the client.Hollister also was suspended from practicing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorizing a nonlawyer to solicit clients on his behalf, accepting fees from a nonlawyer and allowing that person to practice law, and he failed to obey court orders. He failed to prosecute eight petitions for review before the court of appeals and also filed perfunctory stay motions and inadequate briefs.Hollister was publicly reproved in 1993.In mitigation, he had family problems at the time of the misconduct. |