Lynn S. Young was admitted to the California Bar 13th December 1972, but has since been disbarred. Lynn graduated from McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Lynn S. Young |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 13 December 1972 (51 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 54860 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 707-257-7333 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 707-257-8350 |
Schools
| Law School | McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Davis (Davis CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 1505 4th St Napa, CA 94559 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 15 November 2003 | Disbarred (20 years, 5 months ago) Disbarment 00-O-12507 |
|---|---|
| 10 September 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 7 months ago) Ordered Inactive/Fee Arb/B&P 6203 |
| 11 November 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 00-O-12507 |
| 14 December 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-12507 (23 years, 4 months ago) |
| 9 August 2000 | Active (23 years, 8 months ago) |
| 11 May 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-O-05834 |
| 15 June 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-05834 (25 years, 10 months ago) |
| 13 December 1972 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (51 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 15, 2003 LYNN S. YOUNG [#54860], 55, of Napa was disbarred Nov. 15, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. The State Bar Court review department agreed with a hearing judge's findings that Young failed to comply with an earlier rule 955 order, tried to have another lawyer misrepresent a fact to a court and practiced law while suspended. "In our view," wrote Judge Madge Watai, "disbarment is amply warranted for the protection of the public and the courts."Young was disciplined in 2000 with a requirement that she comply with rule 955 by notifying all her clients, their counsel and other affected parties of her suspension. At the time, she worked at the Napa Law Clinic and had 28 pending cases. She stipulated that she did not provide written notification to any of the clients or return their files, nor did she give written notification to opposing counsel.She remained attorney of record for six cases during her suspension after substituting out or finding different counsel for the others. However, none of the substitutions was filed before the discipline took effect.When Young submitted her rule 955 compliance form, she did not answer several questions but instead attached a declaration stating she believed she had sent substitution forms to all her currently active cases and that she personally spoke with her clients and the local courts were "all aware of my status" because of newspaper articles about her case and because an e-mail in reference to her suspension was sent to the Napa County judges and commissioners.She believed she was in compliance with the rule.While suspended, Young kept her office open, she continued to correspond on office letterhead, see clients and perform a variety of legal work. She also asked another lawyer to call the court for her to say she could not appear at a scheduled hearing because of a conflict. The other lawyer refused.Young requested review of the hearing judge's disbarment recommendation, arguing that violating rule 955 and unauthorized law practice are crimes over which the bar lacks jurisdiction. She said she acted as a law clerk and was not practicing law, that the bar unlawfully came into possession of her trial preparation materials, and that the finding that she tried to have another lawyer make a false statement to the court should be reversed for violating her First Amendment freedom of speech rights.The review department rejected her arguments.The original discipline was imposed for eight acts of misconduct, including failing to obey a court order and providing opposing counsel with a fabricated document, an act of moral turpitude.May 11, 2000 LYNN S. YOUNG [#54860], 52, of Napa was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 11, 2000. Young stipulated to misconduct in two matters and after a trial was held on a third matter, the State Bar Court found that she committed acts of moral turpitude by fabricating a document. Young stipulated that she accepted an unlawful fee without approval of the bankruptcy court and failed to repay it in a timely fashion. In the second matter, she agreed she had filed and pursued a frivolous appeal and failed to pay attorney’s fees as ordered by the court.In the case which went to trial, Young’s co-counsel allowed the statute of limitations to expire in a personal injury matter in which their client had been injured by a drunk driver. They had rejected a $35,000 settlement offer from an insurance company but had failed to file a complaint on time.About three weeks after the statute expired, Young and the other attorney filed a complaint, taking the position that the continuing settlement negotiations would prevent the company from asserting a statute of limitations defense. They knew that restitution would be available to their client as a result of the criminal prosecution of the other driver. However, they were unaware of a statute that provides an additional year to file a complaint if the other driver is found guilty.After the statute expired, Young made a counter-demand of the insurer for $90,000. When the insurance adjustor asked for a copy of the complaint, neither Young nor her co-counsel responded. Through a series of phone calls, the adjustor learned the date the complaint had been filed. When she asked Young what the filing date was, Young said she did not know. Eventually, the adjustor received a fax of the complaint from Young’s office which showed an “endorsed†date prior to the expiration of the statute rather than the actual date the complaint was filed.According to the court, Young “did nothing to investigate or attempt to determine who had faxed an altered document. . . . She stated that the matter ‘had nothing to do with [her],’ and was ‘innocuous and unimportant.’â€The court found that Young misrepresented to the insurance adjustor that she did not know the filing date of the complaint and was responsible for faxing an altered complaint. “She stood accused,†wrote Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale, “publicly and in writing, of fabricating a court document and sending it to an opposing party. An innocent attorney would never have let such a serious, public accusation stand uninvestigated and unrefuted.†|