John Clifton Elstead was admitted to the California Bar 18th December 1974, but has since been disbarred. John graduated from UC Berkeley SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | John Clifton Elstead |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 18 December 1974 (50 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 61048 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 510-339-3243 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | UC Berkeley SOL (Berkeley CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of California Riverside (CA) |
Address
| Current Address | The Elstead Law Firm, 7460 Woodrow Dr Oakland, CA 94611 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 19 August 2016 | Disbarred (8 years, 8 months ago) Disbarment 13-N-14409 |
|---|---|
| 6 February 2015 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 13-N-14409 |
| 29 July 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 14-O-00579 (10 years, 9 months ago) |
| 23 June 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 08-O-11040 |
| 18 April 2014 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-N-14409 (11 years ago) |
| 17 May 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 08-O-11040 |
| 17 December 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 08-O-11040 (14 years, 4 months ago) |
| 1 November 2005 | Public reproval with/duties 00-O-14958 (19 years, 6 months ago) |
| 21 December 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-O-14958 (20 years, 4 months ago) |
| 18 December 1974 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (50 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
August 19, 2016 JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD [#61048], 73, of Oakland, was disbarred Aug. 19, 2016 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Elstead appealed a State Bar Court hearing judge’s disbarment recommendation arguing, among other things, he “substantially complied†with rule 9.20. But a three-judge panel upheld the discipline recommendation, finding disbarment necessary to protect the public and the profession.He failed to comply with rule 9.20 following a 2013 suspension by filing a late declaration and claimed he had filed a notice with the Court of Appeal when he had not. In addition, Elstead engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by signing and filing legal documents and holding himself out as eligible to practice law when he wasn’t. The panel also found Elstead committed three acts of moral turpitude when he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. In addition, he failed to cooperate with the State Bar by not responding to two letters from a State Bar investigator.Elstead’s previous suspension in 2013 was for failing to account to clients, committing acts of moral turpitude, failing to return unearned fees and accepting fees from a non-client.May 17, 2013 JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD [#61048], 70, of Oakland, was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years’ probation with an actual six-month suspension and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court and to take the MPRE. The order took effect May 17, 2013. Elstead sought review of a State Bar Court hearing judge’s recommendation that he receive a two-year actual suspension. The hearing judge found Elstead culpable of five of eight counts he was charged with, including failing to account to clients, committing acts of moral turpitude, failing to return unearned fees and accepting fees from a non-client. Elstead challenged the judge’s culpability findings, claiming that the premature introduction of aggravating factors clouded the outcome of his case.A three-judge panel found Elstead culpable of only three of the counts of misconduct, that he failed to account to two clients and improperly accepted attorney fees from a third party without his client’s consent. The panel also found significantly less aggravation in Elstead’s case than the hearing judge did.In the two matters that led to his discipline, Elstead did not provide a client with a proper breakdown of fees deducted from a settlement the client received for a lawsuit filed over complications resulting from a surgical procedure. In the other, Elstead accepted $15,000 in fees from a client’s wife and sister without first getting the client’s permission.Elstead has one prior discipline on his record. In 2005, he stipulated to a public reproval based on one count of misleading a judge. |