E. Alan Nunez is an inactive member of the California Bar and was admitted 18th December 1974. E. graduated from UC Hastings COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | E. Alan Nunez |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 18 December 1974 (50 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Inactive |
| Bar Number | 62288 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 559-439-2027 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 559-439-2027 |
Schools
| Law School | UC Hastings COL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | San Francisco State Unv (San Francisco CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 1410 E Fallbrook Ave Fresno, CA 93720-2623 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 31 December 2018 | Inactive (6 years, 4 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 19 July 2011 | Active (13 years, 9 months ago) |
| 1 July 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 3 December 2005 | Active (19 years, 5 months ago) |
| 3 November 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 03-O-00127 |
| 18 December 1974 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (50 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
November 3, 2005 E. ALAN NUNEZ [#62288], 64, of Fresno was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 3, 2005. Nunez stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or report sanctions to the State Bar within 30 days. He represented a company that lost a $250,000 bail bond on a criminal defendant who failed to appear at a preliminary hearing. After allowing two extensions to set aside the forfeiture, the court ordered no further extensions. The company argued the court lost jurisdiction over the bond because it didn’t make the bail forfeiture order in open court. The court denied the motion.Nunez then began representing the company and in his brief, cited a case he had handled as grounds for making a forfeiture declaration in court. In fact, however, that case resulted in a ruling that such a declaration did not have to be made in open court. An appellate court found that Nunez made a frivolous argument and tried to intentionally mislead the court. It sanctioned him $10,000, but he did not report the sanction to the bar.In mitigation, Nunez has no prior record of discipline, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and he believed that his argument was correct. |