Verne Craig Scholl was first admitted to the California Bar 7th January 1971, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Verne graduated from University of Michigan Law School.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Verne Craig Scholl |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 7 January 1971 (54 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 48634 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 760-473-6905 |
| Fax Number | 760-431-7885 |
Schools
| Law School | University of Michigan Law School (Ann Arbor MI) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Santa Barbara (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 5751 Palmer Way Ste A1 Carlsbad, CA 92010-7261 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 1 September 2017 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (7 years, 8 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
|---|---|
| 20 November 2016 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (8 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 15-O-14716 |
| 27 July 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 11-O-16820 |
| 1 July 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 6 June 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (9 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 14-O-03022 |
| 26 July 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 12-O-14406 |
| 1 March 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 11-O-16820 |
| 9 August 2013 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 12-O-14406 (11 years, 8 months ago) |
| 24 May 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-O-16820 (12 years, 11 months ago) |
| 7 January 1971 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (54 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 20, 2016 VERNE CRAIG SCHOLL [#48634], 74, of Carlsbad, was suspended from the practice of law for three years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation. He was also placed on four years’ probation and faces a four-year suspension if he fails to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. He must also take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Nov. 20, 2016. Scholl failed to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation by not attending State Bar Ethics School and State Bar Trust Accounting School and providing proof of having done so to the Office of Probation.He had three prior records of discipline. In mitigation, he was experiencing financial difficulties at the time of his misconduct and entered into a prefiling stipulation with the State Bar.June 6, 2015 VERNE CRAIG SCHOLL [#48634], 73, of Carlsbad, was suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and make restitution. He was also placed on two years’ probation and faces a one-year suspension if he fails to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. The order took effect June 6, 2015. Scholl stipulated to misconduct in two loan modification matters. He held himself out as entitled to practice law in Florida and Maryland, where he was not licensed, and accepted illegal fees.Scholl was ordered to pay $3,700 plus interest in restitution. In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation with the State Bar.He had two prior records of discipline. He was suspended twice in 2014 for misconduct that included the unauthorized practice of law, collecting illegal fees, accepting advanced fees for loan modification work and grossly negligent misappropriation.March 1, 2014 VERNE CRAIG SCHOLL [#48634], 71, of Carlsbad was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on two years’ probation with an actual one-year suspension and ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect March 1, 2014. Scholl’s discipline arises from five acts of misconduct in two client matters. The first matter stemmed from an agreement he entered into to do loan modification work on behalf of an Illinois resident. He stipulated to the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction and charging and collecting illegal fees.A hearing judge found Scholl culpable of three acts of misconduct in the other matter – misappropriating $49,640 from one client based on his gross neglect in failing to properly supervise an employee, and failing to maintain that client’s funds in trust or return the funds to his client for approximately six months. State Bar prosecutors sought review, arguing that Scholl’s misconduct in that case caused such significant harm to his client that it warranted disbarment.In concluding Scholl should only be suspended, a three-judge review panel agreed with the hearing judge that there was compelling evidence in Scholl’s favor: his lengthy discipline-free practice, his candor and cooperation with the State Bar, good character, extensive community service and remorse.In 2009, Scholl’s firm was hired to obtain a loan modification on behalf of a mobile home owner but Scholl left the task largely to his non-attorney partner. During the process, the man’s mobile home burned down and he paid Scholl $6,000 to settle the claims with his insurance company. The insurance company ultimately paid $124,880 to cover the cost of replacing the mobile home. Using a company to assist him, the man attempted to buy another home but the sale fell through and $49,640 that had been placed in escrow to purchase the home was mailed to Scholl’s office in April 2011. The funds were never deposited in Scholl’s client trust account and were misappropriated.The following June, the company found another prospective home for the man and Scholl’s non-attorney partner disbursed $28,000 to the company to buy the home. In July, the company purchased the home, assuming the client had approved the deal. Unbeknownst to Scholl, the client never signed a purchase agreement or authorized the transfer of funds. In September 2011, the client fired the firm and demanded all of his funds be returned. Scholl admitted he failed to properly supervise the partner. Ultimately, the client received all of his money back. |