Stevan Noxon was admitted to the California Bar 23rd July 1971, but has since been disbarred. Stevan graduated from UC Hastings COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Stevan Noxon |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 23 July 1971 (53 years, 9 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 49932 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 559-255-5418 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | UC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Berkeley (Berkeley CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 1143 S Minnewawa Fresno, CA 93727-5330 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 29 December 1995 | Disbarred (29 years, 4 months ago) Disbarment 94-N-11030 |
|---|---|
| 2 August 1993 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (31 years, 9 months ago) |
| 15 September 1985 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. (39 years, 7 months ago) |
| 23 July 1971 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (53 years, 9 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 29, 1995 STEVAN NOXON [#49932], 49, of Fresno was disbarred Dec. 29, 1995, and ordered to comply with Rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. Noxon was ordered in 1993 to comply with Rule 955 by notifying his clients and other pertinent parties that he had been suspended and to file an affidavit with the Supreme Court that he had done so. Because he filed the affidavit 10 months late, the State Bar Court found that his noncompliance was wilful and recommended disbarment. Noxon originally was placed on interim suspension following his conviction for automobile theft, burglary and bribing a witness. Noxon was a chief deputy district attorney in Fresno, an assistant federal defender for six years and a criminal defense attorney in private practice. He was forced to resign from both government positions due to his drug use. Even after his 1992 criminal convictions and his suspension from practice, he was arrested twice on drug charges. Although Noxon claimed his addiction should be considered mitigating evidence, the State Bar Court disagreed, noting that there was no causal connection between the drug use and his misconduct. Even assuming his delay in filing the 955 affidavit was a result of his drug addiction, the court said, Noxon "did not demonstrate that he can control his use of illicit substances." And although several witnesses testified about Noxon's character, they all conceded that "the State Bar had a responsibility not to permit (Noxon) to practice law if not in control of drug abuse. "The evidence clearly shows (Noxon) is not in control of his use of illicit drugs and there is no reasonable likelihood that his situation will change." |