Leo Fasen is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 4th October 1972. Leo graduated from USC Law School.

Lawyer Information

NameLeo Fasen
First Admitted4 October 1972 (52 years, 8 months ago)
StatusActive
Bar Number53023

Contact

Phone Number310-569-4045
Fax Number562-861-1269

Schools

Law SchoolUSC Law School (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of California Berkeley (Berkeley CA)

Address

Current AddressLaw Ofc Leo Fasen, 8221 3rd St Ste 404
Downey, CA 90241-3733
Map

History

16 April 1998Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-17931 (27 years, 1 month ago)
25 March 1997Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-17931 (28 years, 2 months ago)
30 April 1995Active (30 years, 1 month ago)
31 March 1995Not eligible to practice law in CA (30 years, 2 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 92-O-13003
3 May 1994Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-13003 (31 years ago)
4 October 1972Admitted to the State Bar of California (52 years, 8 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

April 16, 1998

LEO FASEN [#53023], 51, of Beverly Hills was suspended for three months, stayed, and placed on a year of probation consecutive to that imposed in a 1995 case. The order took effect April 16, 1998.

Fasen stipulated to misconduct in two matters.

In a slip and fall case he accepted on a contingency basis, Fasen failed to file a claim with a municipal agency within the required six months, filed a lawsuit court without meeting the claim requirement, and failed to comply with the court's delay reduction rules by not effect-ing service of the complaint. He substituted out of the case without protecting his client's interests and without informing her of the defects in the lawsuit.

Fasen failed to perform legal services in another case in which he represented the victim of an auto accident who was in a coma. Fasen settled the case for $15,000 and distributed the settlement proceeds to his client without honoring a medical lien.

Fasen was disciplined in 1995 for commingling trust funds and for failing to supervise the distribution of settlement funds, which resulted in misappropriation of client funds.

In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.