San Diego, CA 92129-2161
16 April 1998 | Disbarred (27 years ago) Disbarment 96-N-06006 |
---|---|
13 November 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-N-06006 |
19 July 1997 | Ordered inactive 96-N-06006 (27 years, 9 months ago) |
7 May 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-N-06006 (28 years ago) |
28 July 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (28 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-16028 |
28 July 1995 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 94- 0-16028 |
28 February 1995 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-16028 (30 years, 2 months ago) |
1 January 1994 | Inactive (31 years, 4 months ago) |
18 March 1986 | Public reproval 85-O-00054 (39 years, 1 month ago) |
29 April 1985 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 85-O-00054 (40 years ago) |
14 December 1972 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (52 years, 5 months ago) |
April 16, 1998 WILLIAM SCHOFIELD MULLIN [#54194], 60, of San Diego was disbarred April 16, 1998, and ordered to comply with rule 955. Mullin failed to comply with an earlier 955 order in a 1996 discipline matter. The misconduct in that case included failure to complete competent legal services, release to the client all papers and property, respond to status inquiries, keep his client informed of significant developments in the case, and cooperate with the bar's investigation. Mullin abandoned his clients completely. He also was publicly reproved in 1986 for failing to perform the legal services for which he was hired and other violations.July 28, 1996 WILLIAM SCHOFIELD MULLIN [#54194], 58, of San Diego was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for two years on the condition that he actually be suspended for 90 days and until he makes restitution. If the period of actual suspension exceeds two years, he will remain suspended until he has provided proof of his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect July 28, 1996.In this default decision, Mullin was found culpable of failing to communicate with his client, complete legal services and promptly return the client’s files.In 1992, Mullin was employed by two sisters to represent them in a lawsuit which they had filed in propria persona against a corporation.In 1993, Mullin negotiated a settlement of the matter which required the corporation to pay the sisters $6,500, with $1,000 to be paid at the time of the agreement and the balance to paid in monthly installments of $500.The sisters received the initial payment of $1,000 but no monthly payments. They arranged for Mullin to keep the $1,000 toward his fees but their repeated attempts to contact him to ask for enforcement of the judgment were unsuccessful.In 1994, they retained another attorney to handle the matter, but she was unsuccessful in arranging for a substitution of counsel and obtaining the sisters’ files. Considered an aggravating factor in the discipline decision was Mullins’ prior record of misconduct. In 1986, he received a public reproval when he failed to complete legal services, as well as other violations in two client matters. |