Anaheim, CA 92803
11 June 2000 | Disbarred (23 years, 10 months ago) |
---|---|
23 July 1994 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (29 years, 9 months ago) |
29 June 1971 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (52 years, 10 months ago) |
June 11, 2000 JAMES EDWARD WILKOSKI [#49860], 59, of Anaheim was disbarred June 11, 2000. Wilkoski failed to file with the Supreme Court the affidavit required by rule 955, which is grounds for disbarment.He has a record of two prior disciplines.In 1994, he was suspended for failing to respect the court and failing to comply with court orders in connection with his representation of a criminal defendant.He was suspended and placed on probation in 1998 for making a material misrepresentation to the court, seeking to mislead the court as to his status as an attorney and of violating his probation from the 1994 matter by not filing his final probation report and not attending ethics school. The bar court also found that he made false statements in earlier probation reports.“The current misconduct demonstrates a pattern of misconduct,†wrote bar court Judge Madge S. Watai. Wilkoski’s “disciplinary history evidences [his] continuing refusal to comply with court orders and to comply with his professional obligations.â€June 12, 1998 JAMES EDWARD WILKOSKI [#49860], 57, of Anaheim was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual one-year suspension and until he proves rehabilitation, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect June 12, 1998. In 1994, Wilkoski was suspended and ordered to comply with a San Diego Municipal Court judgment of contempt. Since he didn't comply with the court order, he has been suspended from practice since July 23, 1994.While suspended, he signed an affidavit in which he asserted that he was licensed to practice. By submitting the affidavit to the court, he made a material misrepresentation and sought to mislead the court.As a condition of his 1994 discipline, Wilkoski was required to submit quarterly probation reports and attend ethics school. He did not file his final report, nor did he attend ethics school. In two of the quarterly reports, he stated that he had complied with the State Bar Act during the course of his suspension. That statement was false since he submitted a false affidavit to a court. |