James Joseph Bajgrowicz was admitted to the California Bar 24th June 1971, but has since been disbarred. James graduated from Indiana University Indianapolis SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | James Joseph Bajgrowicz |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 24 June 1971 (53 years, 10 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 49253 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 707-528-2510 |
| Fax Number | 707-528-2543 |
Schools
| Law School | Indiana University Indianapolis SOL (IN) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Indiana University (IN) |
Address
| Current Address | Law Ofc James J Bajgrowicz, 196 C Wikiup Dr Santa Rosa, CA 95403 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 9 February 2008 | Disbarred (17 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 06-O-11578 |
|---|---|
| 3 September 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-11578 |
| 16 August 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 26 May 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-11578 |
| 10 May 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 12 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 04-O-13150 |
| 26 January 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-11578 |
| 22 July 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 9 months ago) Inactive - Irreparable injury (6007c) 06-TE-12814 |
| 15 July 2006 | Active (18 years, 9 months ago) |
| 15 June 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-11578 (18 years, 10 months ago) |
| 15 January 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 3 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-13150 |
| 3 October 2005 | Active (19 years, 7 months ago) |
| 16 September 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 23 February 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-13150 (20 years, 2 months ago) |
| 21 January 1999 | Active (26 years, 3 months ago) |
| 23 December 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 4 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 94-O-14770 |
| 2 December 1997 | Active (27 years, 5 months ago) |
| 3 September 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-14770 |
| 19 January 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-14770 (29 years, 3 months ago) |
| 24 June 1971 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (53 years, 10 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
February 9, 2008 JAMES JOSEPH BAJGROWICZ [#49253], 66, of Santa Rosa was disbarred Feb. 9, 2008, and ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bajgrowicz practiced law while suspended, committed acts of moral turpitude and violated the terms of his probation.Prior to his 2006 suspension, Bajgrowicz represented a property management company in various matters, including unlawful detainers. Knowing he would be suspended, he entered into an agreement with attorney Charles Coppock, who would file the unlawful detainer complaints for the company after Bajgrowicz prepared them. Under the terms of the agreement, the property management company would pay Bajgrowicz $750 per complaint, and he in turn would pay Coppock $100 for each complaint filed as well as his regular hourly fee for appearances and other work.However, once Bajgrowicz was suspended, he did the work without consulting Coppock. Coppock eventually suggested Bajgrowicz sign Coppock’s name to the complaints and gave him a signature stamp.Bajgrowicz and Coppock have differing versions of whether Coppock rescinded the signature authorization.In addition to providing legal advice to the property management company, Bajgrowicz forged the signature of the company’s authorized agent on the verifications of the complaints. The verifications were made under penalty of perjury.The underlying discipline was imposed for obtaining loans from a client and friend without meeting the necessary requirements. In 1997, Bajgrowicz was disciplined for setting up an estate plan that was potentially advantageous to him at the expense of his client. In recommending Bajgrowicz’s disbarment, Judge Richard Honn noted his “contemptuous attitude†towards the proceedings and pointed out that the misconduct occurred while he was suspended. “It is evident,†Honn wrote, “that (Bajgrowicz) is unable or unwilling to conform his behavior to the ethics rules and that he does not respect them.†The bar also charged Coppock last October with failing to perform legal services competently or report to the bar that he employed a suspended attorney. Coppock stipulated to misconduct and entered the alternative discipline program for lawyers with substance abuse or mental problems.January 15, 2006 AMES JOSEPH BAJGROWICZ [#49253], 64, of Santa Rosa was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on four years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within a year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Jan. 15, 2006. Bajgrowicz entered into two business transactions with a client without meeting the necessary requirements. He did some legal work for a friend of more than 30 years and in 2002, asked the man for a $5,000 loan in order that he could make his mortgage payments. The loan was the result of an oral agreement and there was no provision for security, interest or method and time of repayment. Bajgrowicz did not advise his friend to seek independent legal advice.About a year later, Bajgrowicz asked his friend for a loan of $20,000. This time, the two signed a written agreement and Bajgrowicz told his friend, orally, to seek independent legal advice. Some time later, the men had a falling out and the friend’s new lawyer asked Bajgrowicz to immediately pay the outstanding amount of the loans. Bajgrowicz responded that he would continue to make payments to the bank, as he had been doing.When the friend died, his son inherited his entire estate and was represented by Bajgrowicz. The son mortgaged the house he inherited and paid off Bajgrowicz’ loans.Bajgrowicz did not reply to three letters from a State Bar investigator.He stipulated that the first loan was not fair to his friend because its terms were not transmitted in writing, the friend was not advised in writing to seek the advice of counsel nor was he given a reasonable opportunity to seek such advice, he did not consent to the terms of the loan in writing, and no specific provision was made for repayment.The second loan was unfair because Bajgrowicz did not tell his friend in writing to seek independent legal advice.Bajgrowicz also was disciplined in 1997 for setting up an estate plan which was potentially advantageous to him at the expense of his client. He failed to disclose, in writing, serious potential adverse interests inherent in the transaction, did not advise the client, in writing, to seek independent counsel and he failed to communicate the significant consequences of the transaction he had structured for the client. In mitigation, Bajgrowicz has performed substantial professional and community service.September 3, 1997 JAMES JOSEPH BAJGROWICZ [#49253], 55, of Santa Rosa was suspended for two years and until he shows proof of his fitness to practice. The suspension was stayed and he was placed on two years probation, including 90 days actual suspension. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order was effective Sept. 3, 1997. Bajgrowicz was hired by a 72-year-old childless widow to prepare an estate plan to provide for her current and future needs, secure the greatest tax benefits and to remember certain charities and friends. However, Bajgrowicz set up a trust and will which presented several conflicts of interest potentially adverse to the client and beneficial to himself. Upon the recommendation of her insurance agent, the client’s home was appraised, with an addendum noting the property’s potentially lucrative commercial and residential value. The appraised value of the home was $525,000. To fund the trust set up by Bajgrowicz, the client sold the remainder interest in her home to him and the insurance agent, for its full appraised value. Both men gave the client two promissory notes, secured by a deed of trust on the home. Both notes were not due until a year after the client died and no interest would accrue until her death, at which time the interest rate would be 10 percent per year. The trust named Bajgrowicz’ wife, who was also his secretary, as successor trustee should the original trustee, a friend of the client’s, die before the client. Bajgrowicz arranged a similar plan for the client’s will. Bajgrowicz’ wife would have been responsible for securing payment of the promissory notes if the original executrix of the will died before the client. Bajgrowicz failed to disclose, in writing, serious potential adverse interests inherent in the transaction he structured for the client by nominating his wife as successor trustee and executrix. He also did not advise the client, in writing, to seek independent counsel and he failed to communicate the significant consequences of the transaction he had structured for her. By setting up an estate plan which was potentially advantageous to him, at the expense of his client, Bajgrowicz violated rule 3-300(a) of the Professional Rules of Conduct. In aggravation, Bajgrowicz’ misconduct involved multiple acts of wrongdoing. The client also was harmed in that she had to retain counsel to rectify the damage done by Bajgrowicz and others. The situation was resolved by a compromise in which Bajgrowicz and his wife returned $3,000 in fees. No mitigating weight was given to Bajgrowicz’ prior discipline-free record because his misconduct was deemed serious. |