Philip Allen Putman was admitted to the California Bar 5th January 1972, but has since been disbarred. Philip graduated from Pepperdine University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Philip Allen Putman |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 5 January 1972 (52 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 51368 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 714-968-8339 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 714-968-8339 |
Schools
| Law School | Pepperdine University SOL (Malibu CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | California St University Long Beach (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | Law Offices of Philip A Putman, PO Box 7336 Huntington Beach, CA 92615 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 16 June 2012 | Disbarred (11 years, 10 months ago) Disbarment 06-O-13798 |
|---|---|
| 10 November 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 06-O-13798 |
| 4 December 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 4 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 09-Q-18694 |
| 20 February 2009 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-15068 (15 years, 2 months ago) |
| 5 December 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-13798 (15 years, 4 months ago) |
| 27 March 2001 | Active (23 years, 1 month ago) |
| 27 October 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 95-O-16163 |
| 24 October 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-16163 (27 years, 6 months ago) |
| 9 July 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-H-03466 (27 years, 10 months ago) |
| 25 February 1995 | Private reproval, public disclosure 92-O-10820 (29 years, 2 months ago) |
| 3 June 1994 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 93-O-17134 (29 years, 11 months ago) |
| 15 December 1993 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-10820 (30 years, 4 months ago) |
| 5 January 1972 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (52 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
June 16, 2012 PHILIP ALLEN PUTMAN, 77, of Huntington Beach was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Putnam stipulated to ten counts of misconduct in three matters.In the first, he submitted false billing statements to his client after instructing his billing clerk to alter the statements in order to change the paralegal rate of $100 per hour to the $300 per hour attorney rate. He also told the clerk to “white out†the paralegals’ initials on a billing report. He created a second billing reflecting the higher rates as well as new charges. In total, he claimed $392,397.50 in attorney’s fees. The client, who had paid $11,700, fired Putnam and hired a new lawyer.In addition, Putnam charged the client for work done when he had said he was unavailable. The stipulation asserts the fees also were unconscionable “considering the time and labor required to complete the tasks,†such as “$600 (2 hours) to prepare, file and serve a one-sentence notice of ruling†and a charge of $2,100 (7 hours) to deliver exhibits to a copy shop.The court ruled that the attorney fees Putnam claimed were unreasonable and should total $40,000. Although the client paid that amount, Putnam claimed in subsequent complaints filed with the courts that the client had made no payments.Putnam separately sued the client for $685,500 in fees, costs and punitive damages, claiming approximately $474,500 were attorney fees. Although a jury awarded Putnam $405,050 in damages, the court found the award excessive. Among other things, the court said Putnam had submitted unreliable “if not fraudulent†billing statements and suggested he committed criminal acts.Putnam also received settlement checks for his client, totaling $8,000, from two financial institutions, but generated billing statements that credited the client with only part of the money.He stipulated that he committed acts of moral turpitude, charged unconscionable fees, failed to account for client funds and misappropriated funds.While representing a couple who were defendants in a civil case, Putnam did not file a timely response on their behalf or refund their unearned fee. The plaintiff won a default judgment of $40,468.57 against Putnam’s clients.In the third matter, Putnam represented a woman in three separate cases, including a legal malpractice action. He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently: he failed to properly draft the complaint or first and second amended complaints, properly serve all the defendants, provide notice of a case management conference, provide proper discovery responses, file opposition to various motions to compel, or appear at two hearings. He also did not plead the facts properly or provide a basis for his client’s claim to attorney’s fees. He stipulated that he disobeyed court orders.Putnam was privately reproved in 1995 and in 2000, was suspended and placed on probation for violating the terms of the reproval and for failing to comply with a court order or report sanctions to the State Bar.October 27, 2000 PHILIP A. PUTMAN [#51368], 65, of Huntington Beach was suspended for nine months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 27, 2000. The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings that Putman failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a private reproval (he did not submit quarterly probation reports)The private reproval, issued in 1995, was the result of Putman’s failure to communicate with a client, perform legal services competently or return a client’s documents, as well as improperly sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer and improperly withdrawing from employment.The hearing judge also found in another matter that Putman failed to comply with a court order or report sanctions to the State Bar. In that case, Putman represented the husband in a dissolution of marriage petition, and brought a civil action against the wife’s attorney, accusing him of wrongs arising from the family law action.Despite an appellate court decision which made Putman’s claims moot, he pursued his claims, forcing the wife and her lawyer to defend themselves. He and his client were sanctioned $1,500. Although the client paid $1,100, Putman never paid the sanction or reported it to the bar.The hearing judge declined to credit Putman’s testimony that many of his difficulties were the fault of his former law partners.The review department further rejected Putman’s argument that he delegated his compliance to others who did not follow through and that he was the victim of a conspiracy by other attorneys to ruin him. |