Phoenix, AZ 85014-3615
10 January 2001 | Resigned (23 years, 3 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 00-Q-13969 |
---|---|
29 September 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 7 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 00-Q-13969 |
16 July 2000 | Discipline w/actual suspension 00-PM-11734 (23 years, 9 months ago) |
16 July 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-PM-11734 |
15 May 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-N-11343 (23 years, 11 months ago) |
24 October 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-J-06988 |
20 March 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-J-06988 (27 years, 1 month ago) |
1 January 1992 | Inactive (32 years, 4 months ago) |
26 June 1970 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (53 years, 10 months ago) |
November 12, 2000 The probation of ROGER A. McKEE [#46944], 57, of Phoenix was revoked, the previously ordered stay of suspension was lifted, and he was suspended for three years, with credit for an 18-month suspension previously served and for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment which began July 16, 2000. He was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 12, 2000. McKee resigned Jan. 10, 2001. McKee failed to file quarterly probation reports and psychiatric reports, as required by a 1998 disciplinary order.At that time, he stipulated to committing misconduct in two different cases in Arizona which would have led to discipline in California had it been committed here.He was suspended for nine months in 1996 for misconduct in four client matters, including failing to perform legal services, communicate with a client or give a client money to which he is entitled, and for conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentations.In 1997, McKee was disciplined again for misconduct in five client matters, including failing to perform competently, communicate with clients, cooperate with the bar’s investigation and for withdrawing from representation without protecting his client’s rights. |