Los Angeles, CA 90045
11 April 1998 | Disbarred (27 years ago) Disbarment 95-O-11276 |
---|---|
21 July 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
11 July 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 92-O-13304 |
10 April 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (28 years ago) Ordered inactive 95-O-11276 |
28 March 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-11276 (29 years, 1 month ago) |
31 July 1995 | Active (29 years, 9 months ago) |
31 July 1995 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 9 months ago) |
22 March 1995 | Active (30 years, 1 month ago) |
21 January 1995 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (30 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 90-C-14677 |
13 May 1993 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-13304 (31 years, 12 months ago) |
2 November 1992 | Active (32 years, 6 months ago) |
10 August 1992 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (32 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
25 July 1992 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (32 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 88-O-11733 |
14 August 1991 | Active (33 years, 8 months ago) |
12 August 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (33 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
9 July 1991 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 90-C-14677 (33 years, 10 months ago) |
31 July 1990 | Active (34 years, 9 months ago) |
30 July 1990 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (34 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
23 February 1990 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 88-O-11733 (35 years, 2 months ago) |
24 July 1989 | Active (35 years, 9 months ago) |
24 July 1989 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (35 years, 9 months ago) |
1 October 1986 | Active (38 years, 7 months ago) |
29 September 1986 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (38 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
18 July 1984 | Active (40 years, 9 months ago) |
9 July 1984 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (40 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
13 September 1983 | Active (41 years, 8 months ago) |
27 June 1983 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (41 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
15 January 1970 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (55 years, 4 months ago) |
April 11, 1998 HUNSDON CARY STEWART [#46008], 54, of Los Angeles was disbarred April 11, 1998, and ordered to comply with rule 955. Stewart was charged with seven counts of misconduct, involving misuse of his client trust account and two instances of failing to pay or report sanctions imposed on him by the courts. The first sanction, in the amount of $1,000, was imposed in 1994. Stewart appealed the sanction but never paid it or reported it to the State Bar. The second sanction, in the amount of $3,595, was imposed against both Stewart and his clients in 1995 and was to be paid within 30 days. He did not pay the sanction or report it to the bar, but argued he did not need to report it because he believed bar prosecutors were aware of various sanctions against him. Stewart was suspended at the time the sanction was imposed, and had no resources to pay the amount owed, but he made no effort to inform the court or have the sanction reduced. The misuse of his client trust account arose because Stewart deposited personal funds into the account six times and paid personal debts or extended loans with those funds by writing 29 checks. There were no mitigating circumstances. Stewart has a prior record of discipline and has been continuously suspended since July 1992. He was suspended for 90 days that year for failing to perform legal services competently or pay out entrusted funds on demand, commingling personal and entrusted funds, and misappropriating $1,000 in client funds. He was disciplined in 1994 following a criminal conviction for battery of a police officer during a domestic dispute. Stewart also has a pending discipline case as a result of multiple acts of wrongdoing over a significant time period. Stewart "is woefully lacking in his appreciation or understanding of the basic ethical axioms that members of the State Bar must obey," wrote bar court Judge Eugene E. Brott in recommending disbarment. "[He] is unwilling or unable to conform his conduct to those ethical norms, and . . . as such, he represents a continuing risk with regard to further unethical behavior."July 11, 1997 The Supreme Court denied petition for writ of review by HUNSDON CARY STEWART [#46008], 54, of Los Angeles and suspended him for five years, stayed, placed him on probation for five years with an actual suspension of two years and until he proves rehabilitation, and ordered him to comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 11, 1997. Stewart had appealed the recommendation of a State Bar Court hearing judge, but the review department increased the recommended discipline significantly.The review department found that for a little more than a year, Stewart used his client trust account as his personal checking account. He also used it to hide assets from his creditors, including his former wife and the IRS, to whom he owed about $30,000 in back taxes.He also wrote 17 bad checks on the account.Stewart has been disciplined twice previously, both resulting in actual suspensions. In one case, he failed to perform legal services competently, commingled personal and entrusted funds, failed to pay out entrusted funds on demand, and misappropriated $1,000 in client funds.In the second matter, he was convicted of misdemeanor battery on a police officer after he refused to leave his estranged wife's apartment. The record before the hearing judge did not contain the conviction matter, but the review department considered the second prior as an aggravating circumstance.The review judge also rejected Stewart's argument that he used the trust account for the "legitimate" purpose of holding funds "under an assignment for the benefit of creditors." He argued that he was under court orders to pay overdue spousal and child support and was therefore obliged to prevent levies from other creditors.The judge found that Stewart's issuance of insufficiently funded checks because he did not review his bank statements was "grossly negligent" and therefore involved moral turpitude. |