Edward Baxter Chatoian is an active member of the California Bar and was admitted 27th June 1975. Edward graduated from U of San Francisco SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Edward Baxter Chatoian |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 27 June 1975 (49 years, 10 months ago) |
| Status | Active |
| Bar Number | 63957 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 559-485-0101 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 559-485-7643 |
Schools
| Law School | U of San Francisco SOL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Washington St University (Pullman WA) |
Address
| Current Address | Law Offices of Edward B. Chatoian, 1155 W Shaw Ave, Ste 104 Fresno, CA 93711-3748 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | 2607 Fresno St Fresno, CA 93721 |
| Previous Address | 1155 W Shaw Ave, Ste 104 Fresno, CA 93711-3748 |
History
| 9 August 2024 | Active (8 months, 3 weeks ago) |
|---|---|
| 2 July 2024 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 months ago) Admin Inactive/CTAPP noncompliance |
| 5 February 2009 | Active (16 years, 2 months ago) |
| 3 January 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 4 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 07-H-14208 |
| 6 December 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-H-14208 (17 years, 5 months ago) |
| 29 March 2006 | Public reproval with/duties 04-O-15379 (19 years, 1 month ago) |
| 30 August 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 04-O-15379 (19 years, 8 months ago) |
| 27 June 1975 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (49 years, 10 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
January 3, 2009 EDWARD BAXTER CHATOIAN [#63957], 61, of Fresno was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension. The order took effect Jan. 3, 2009. Chatoian stipulated that he failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2006 public reproval. He failed to submit five quarterly reports, took the MPRE late, and missed the deadline for submission of a law office management plan. He subsequently submitted four plans, but each was deficient.The reproval was based on his failure to perform legal services competently, return client phone calls, keep a client informed of developments in his case or promptly pay out client funds.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |