Maxim Nicholas Bach was admitted to the California Bar 15th January 1970, but has since been disbarred. Maxim graduated from University of Missouri SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Maxim Nicholas Bach |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 15 January 1970 (54 years, 3 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 44804 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 562-424-6915 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | University of Missouri SOL (Columbia MO) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California at Los Angeles (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 2245 Magnolia Ave Long Beach, CA 90806 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 19 August 2005 | Disbarred (18 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 00-O-10659 |
|---|---|
| 17 December 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-O-10659 |
| 6 March 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 00-O-10659 |
| 15 February 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-04307 (22 years, 2 months ago) |
| 7 December 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-10659 (22 years, 4 months ago) |
| 5 September 1992 | Active (31 years, 8 months ago) |
| 8 July 1992 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (31 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 89-O-12579 |
| 16 May 1991 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-12579 (32 years, 11 months ago) |
| 25 November 1987 | Active (36 years, 5 months ago) |
| 26 September 1987 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (36 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension |
| 29 July 1986 | Public reproval 84-O-00285 (37 years, 9 months ago) |
| 5 April 1985 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 85-O-00037 (39 years, 1 month ago) |
| 15 January 1970 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (54 years, 3 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
August 19, 2005 MAXIM NICHOLAS BACH [#44804], 64, of Long Beach was disbarred Aug. 19, 2005, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Bach appealed a hearing judge’s recommendation that he be disbarred on the basis of misconduct committed in three client matters. The review department upheld the hearing judge.It found that he committed 11 acts of misconduct, including failing to maintain client funds in trust, promptly deliver client funds, render an accounting, return unearned fees or report court sanctions. The court also found that he committed forgery and acts of moral turpitude.Bach also was disciplined three times previously.Bach’s “past misconduct, his continued inability to recognize the seriousness of his misconduct, his intentional misappropriation of funds entrusted to him as an attorney, his continued rationalization of his misconduct, his lack of remorse and his lack of mitigating circumstances lead us to conclude that there is no appropriate sanction to be recommended except disbarment,†wrote review Judge Madge Watai.She rejected Bach’s claims that he was denied due process and that the hearing judge was prejudiced against him.In the first matter, Bach represented an elderly, unsophisticated couple in a real property dispute that settled for $105,000. An initial $50,000 was payable two weeks after the settlement and the remainder was to be paid out annually as long as the clients continued to own their property.Bach calculated that the clients were entitled to about $18,000, an amount disputed by the wife. When she tried to cash the settlement check for that amount three months later, it bounced. Records show Bach depleted his trust account to $2,170 for his personal benefit, according to the court.After fee arbitration, Bach sued his clients in order to keep the entire $50,000. To date, the clients have not received any portion of their recovery and Bach has collected more than $55,000 in fees.The hearing judge determined the clients were entitled to $35,000 as their recovery; a $15,000 non-refundable fee was found to be unconscionable when added to the 40 percent contingency fee, resulting in a 70 percent fee.The bar court found that Bach committed six acts of misconduct in the case, including moral turpitude, charging and collecting an unconscionable fee and failing to hold disputed client funds in trust.In a second matter, Bach represented a woman in her divorce; she paid him $2,500 for fees and costs and $50 for the initial consultation. A few months later, Bach asked her for another $2,500 as an additional fee deposit. The client paid the money but terminated Bach’s employment about a month later. The client complained that Bach continued to work on her behalf and asked him to stop. She also sought a refund of unearned fees; Bach returned $132.14.The court found that he did not deposit client funds in his trust account, render an accounting or promptly refund unearned fees. In another divorce case, Bach alleged that his client’s former husband’s disability payments were community property. The court found the payments were separate property and denied attorney’s fees to Bach’s client. Bach appealed, but the court said his appeal was frivolous and he violated rules of procedure; it imposed sanctions of almost $10,000.Bach then appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court. He also attempted to discharge the sanctions in a bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court ruled against him. The bar court found that he reported the sanction to the State Bar late. |