Long Beach, CA 90808
23 August 2012 | Disbarred (12 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 08-O-12944 |
---|---|
22 January 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-12944 |
23 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 08-O-12944 |
24 January 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-12944 (14 years, 3 months ago) |
3 July 1996 | Active (28 years, 10 months ago) |
10 February 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 92-O-19711 |
24 February 1994 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-19711 (31 years, 2 months ago) |
1 September 1993 | Active (31 years, 8 months ago) |
31 July 1993 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (31 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 90-O-11964 |
24 May 1991 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-11964 (33 years, 11 months ago) |
18 July 1988 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 86-O-15344 (36 years, 9 months ago) |
9 February 1971 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (54 years, 3 months ago) |
August 23, 2012 RONALD JEROME LeMIEUX, 76, of Long Beach was disbarred Aug. 23, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. LeMieux’s default was entered when he did not respond to charges of six counts of misconduct in two matters. Any attorney who does not seek to have his default set aside or vacated within 180 days is subject to disbarment.In one matter, he was accused of failing to account for $9,250 he received as advance attorney fees, refund $4,000 in unearned fees and release the client’s file. In the second matter, he represented clients with potentially adverse interests, failed to refund $15,000 in unearned fees and committed acts of moral turpitude by misrepresenting facts to his client. LeMieux’s default was entered in both matters and the allegations were deemed admitted.LeMieux also was disciplined in 1993 for failures to release client files, perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar’s investigation. In 1996, he was suspended for failing to perform legal services competently, communicate with clients or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.February 10, 1996 RONALD JEROME LeMIEUX [#49077], 60, of Malibu was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years on the condition that he actually be suspended for four months and until he makes restitution. The order took effect Feb. 10, 1996. If the period of actual suspension is two years or greater, LeMieux will remain suspended until he has shown proof of his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. He also was ordered to comply with Rule 955. In one instance, LeMieux was hired by a client to represent him in an attempt to have a 1988 felony burglary conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. The client intended to apply for a position as a security guard in the defense industry and did not want to answer "yes" to any questions regarding prior felony convictions. However, LeMieux failed to take the necessary steps to have the client's motion heard until May 1994, more than two years later. LeMieux did not know that two weeks earlier the public defender was successful in moving the courts to reduce the felony, after the frustrated client approached him for assistance. Seven months after he initially hired LeMieux, the client applied for the security position, mistakenly believing that LeMieux had obtained the felony reduction. However, the felony burglary conviction was still on his record. For seven years (from late 1992) the client will have a record that he lied on his security application. LeMieux has a prior record of discipline. In 1993 he was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years with a 30-day actual suspension and an order to make restitution. The bar court hearing judge found that LeMieux harmed his clients, he was not candid with bar investigators and his failure to honor a financial agreement with his client's previous counsel was determined to be "in the nature of fraud." LeMieux expressed remorse during the sanction phase of trial and indicated his embarrassment. As another mitigating factor, he noted that he is the father of four and has been a single parent to his two sons since 1984. He also successfully completed probation conditions of his prior discipline, including restitution. |