Fresno, CA 93721
25 February 2009 | Disbarred (16 years, 3 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-14718 |
---|---|
25 August 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 9 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 05-O-04749 |
10 August 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-14718 |
5 May 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-14718 |
18 January 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-14718 (17 years, 4 months ago) |
28 July 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-04749 |
28 July 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-04749 (18 years, 10 months ago) |
21 April 1995 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 93-N-19297 (30 years, 1 month ago) |
18 March 1994 | Active (31 years, 2 months ago) |
27 August 1993 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (31 years, 9 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 90-O-15039 |
4 May 1992 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-15039 (33 years ago) |
15 April 1991 | Active (34 years, 1 month ago) |
16 March 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (34 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 89-O-12490 |
31 January 1990 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 89-O-12490 (35 years, 4 months ago) |
19 December 1973 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (51 years, 5 months ago) |
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.†|