George Bumanglag was admitted to the California Bar 19th December 1973, but has since been disbarred. George graduated from UC Hastings COL.

Lawyer Information

NameGeorge Bumanglag
First Admitted19 December 1973 (51 years, 5 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number56646

Contact

Phone Number559-268-1636
Fax Number559-268-0471

Schools

Law SchoolUC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCalifornia St Polytechnic University (Pomona CA)

Address

Current Address1327 N St
Fresno, CA 93721
Map

History

25 February 2009Disbarred (16 years, 3 months ago)
Disbarment 07-N-14718
25 August 2008Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 9 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 05-O-04749
10 August 2008Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 9 months ago)
Ordered inactive 07-N-14718
5 May 2008Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years ago)
Ordered inactive 07-N-14718
18 January 2008Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-14718 (17 years, 4 months ago)
28 July 2007Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 10 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-04749
28 July 2006Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-04749 (18 years, 10 months ago)
21 April 1995Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 93-N-19297 (30 years, 1 month ago)
18 March 1994Active (31 years, 2 months ago)
27 August 1993Not eligible to practice law in CA (31 years, 9 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 90-O-15039
4 May 1992Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-15039 (33 years ago)
15 April 1991Active (34 years, 1 month ago)
16 March 1991Not eligible to practice law in CA (34 years, 2 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 89-O-12490
31 January 1990Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-12490 (35 years, 4 months ago)
19 December 1973Admitted to the State Bar of California (51 years, 5 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

February 25, 2009

GEORGE BUMANGLAG [#56646], 60, of Fresno was disbarred Feb. 25, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

Bumanglag did not comply with rule 9.20, as required by a 2007 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel or other interested parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.

Bumanglag has been disciplined four times previously. The underlying discipline was imposed for his failure to perform competently. The parties stipulated that Bumanglag’s prior incidents of discipline were not true “priors” because the misconduct charged in 2007 occurred prior to two of the earlier disciplinary orders. The misconduct went back to 1991 and included improperly withdrawing from representation, failing to act competently, respond to client inquiries, return client files or refund unearned fees, disobeying a court order and violating probation conditions.

In recommending Bumanglag’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, “That (he) has again failed to comply with rule 9.20 as ordered by the Supreme Court clearly suggests to this court that respondent’s disbarment is necessary to protect the public, the courts and the legal community, to maintain high professional standards and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession.”