Arthur Charles Kralowec is an inactive member of the California Bar and was admitted 13th December 1972. Arthur graduated from UC Davis SOL King Hall.

Lawyer Information

NameArthur Charles Kralowec
First Admitted13 December 1972 (51 years, 4 months ago)
StatusInactive
Bar Number53916
SectionsPublic Law

Contact

Phone Number530-828-0109

Schools

Law SchoolUC Davis SOL King Hall (Davis CA)
Undergraduate SchoolUniversity of Southern Calif (Los Angeles CA)

Address

Current Address4173 Augusta Ln
Chico, CA 95973-9292
Map

History

29 January 2021Inactive (3 years, 3 months ago)
20 March 2004Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 97-O-17385 (20 years, 1 month ago)
29 November 2001Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 97-O-17385 (22 years, 5 months ago)
5 March 1994Private reproval, public disclosure 89-O-12629 (30 years, 2 months ago)
5 November 1991Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-12608 (32 years, 6 months ago)
8 October 1991Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-12629 (32 years, 7 months ago)
13 December 1972Admitted to the State Bar of California (51 years, 4 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

March 20, 2004

ARTHUR CHARLES KRALOWEC [#53916], 69, of Porterville was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 20, 2004.

The State Bar Court found that Kralowec improperly withdrew from employment, failed to communicate or perform competently, and committed acts of moral turpitude. In her ruling, Judge JoAnn Remke said the case “exemplifies an outrageous waste of judicial resources, involving extremely difficult parties but not difficult issues and thousands of pages of documentary evidence that spanned 27 years, from 1976 to now.”

Kralowec was the fourth of his client’s five attorneys in a construction case that at one time was worth $818. By the time it ended, the contractor was 82 years old, retired and uninterested in collecting the $818 he was owed, one of the judges had retired and another was publicly censured, the contractor’s original attorney had retired and his second attorney had died.

The fight was over a wall that ran along the client’s property; it was cracked and vibrated so the client refused to pay the balance of what was owed. The contractor sued him in 1976 and first won $2,618; in a second trial he won $818. By the time the client appealed, he was on his third attorney; he hired Kralowec in 1988 to represent him in contract and fraud actions.

Kralowec estimated it would cost $30,000 to try the case, an amount that exceeded any likely recovery. The client was determined to take the case to a jury. By 1988, Kralowec and his client were feuding, the client believed he was the victim of a widespread conspiracy and was intent on suing lots of defendants and the judge sent the case to arbitration. Kralowec repeatedly urged the client to find a new lawyer, but his efforts to withdraw were rebuffed.

He met with the client without charge at least 10 times and believed he had adequately withdrawn from representation. However, he never filed a substitution of attorney or petitioned the court to be relieved. From 1991 to 1993, the client wrote to him at least 20 times asking him to pursue the case; Kralowec never responded and testified he did not want to reopen their relationship.

The client’s fifth attorney managed to have the case removed from arbitration and set for trial, but it was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The client sued Kralowec for malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling more than $93,000. An appellate court found that Kralowec acted with malice in breaching his fiduciary duty, and Remke found that malice involves moral turpitude. She also found that he improperly withdrew from representation, and as a result performed incompetently, and he did not respond to his client’s numerous inquiries.

Remke acknowledged that Kralowec was unable to control his client, but said he had an obligation to manage the case effectively or withdraw. “Rather than resolving their differences, (Kralowec) became so frustrated that he abandoned his client to the client’s detriment,” Remke said.

She chided the State Bar for being “extremely uncooperative” with Kralowec and causing undue delays. Also in mitigation, there has been no subsequent misconduct in more than 10 years, and Kralowec acted in good faith; he did not file a motion to withdraw because he believed he was protecting his client’s best interests.

Kralowec has been privately reproved twice, in 1980 and 1994. Remke said their “weight in aggravation is nominal.” She rejected the client’s claim that he was harmed financially. “On the contrary,” Remke wrote, “he benefited financially at the expense of respondent.”