Stanley Goumas Hilton was admitted to the California Bar 18th December 1975, but has since been disbarred. Stanley graduated from Duke University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Stanley Goumas Hilton |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 18 December 1975 (48 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 65990 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Duke University SOL (Durham NC) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Chicago (Chicago IL) |
Address
| Current Address | PO Box 282944 San Francisco, CA 94128 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 16 June 2012 | Disbarred (11 years, 10 months ago) |
|---|---|
| 10 August 2009 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (14 years, 8 months ago) |
| 30 May 1989 | Active (34 years, 11 months ago) |
| 23 May 1989 | Inactive (34 years, 11 months ago) |
| 26 February 1982 | Active (42 years, 2 months ago) |
| 1 January 1982 | Inactive (42 years, 4 months ago) |
| 18 December 1975 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (48 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
June 16, 2012 STANLEY GOUMAS HILTON [#65990], 63, of San Francisco was disbarred June 16, 2012, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz found that Hilton committed five acts of misconduct in two matters, and he was convicted of reckless driving.He represented a client who paid an advance $13,000 fee for two civil actions with contingency fee agreements. Hilton did not account for the fee and was ordered by the bar court to participate in fee arbitration, where he agreed to keep $1,994.25 in costs and refund $11,005.74 to the client. He stipulated that he neither accounted for the advance fee or refunded any money to the client.In a second matter, Hilton practiced law while suspended by accepting a $1,000 fee to handle a foreclosure matter. He told the client he was on inactive status because he was taking a sabbatical to write a book, but he advised the client what pleadings he should file and agreed to prepare them. He then prepared several legal documents. The client believed he was hiring a lawyer and Armendariz found that Hilton engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, collected an illegal fee and committed an act of moral turpitude by lying to the client.Hilton also pleaded no contest in 2011 to reckless driving. The court found the circumstances surrounding the conviction do not constitute moral turpitude but do warrant discipline.In mitigation, Hilton stipulated to disbarment. He also was diagnosed as bipolar and participated in the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program and the Alternative Discipline Program. He was terminated from the ADP after committing further misconduct.He was suspended and placed on probation in 2011 after stipulating to 27 acts of misconduct in eight matters and also was convicted of using offensive words in public likely to provoke a violent reaction, a misdemeanor. He falsely reported to police that his estranged wife had threatened to kill their three children.Armendariz said she was concerned about Hilton’s “continuous course of misconduct†since 2005 as well as his violation of the previous suspension order. He “does not appear to understand the gravity of his misconduct and . . . put his interests above those of his clients,†she wrote.December 30, 2011 STANLEY GOUMAS HILTON [#65990], 62, of San Francisco was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with a three-year actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Dec. 30, 2011. He receives credit for a period of inactive enrollment that began April 5, 2011. Hilton was terminated from the Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with substance abuse or mental health issues and became subject to a more severe discipline than had he completed the program. He practiced law while suspended during his participation in the program.He stipulated to 27 acts of misconduct in eight matters and also was convicted of using offensive words in public likely to provoke a violent reaction, a misdemeanor. He falsely reported to police that his estranged wife had threatened to kill their three children.In one matter, for example, he failed to perform legal services competently by not responding to a cost memorandum or telling his clients about it, he didn’t prosecute a fraud case and by not responding to a Special Motion to Strike, a judgment was entered against his client. In another matter, he tried to mislead a judge by refiling in a court the same case that had been dismissed in another court without revealing to the new court that he had been disqualified as counsel in the matter.He repeatedly failed to perform legal services competently or keep clients informed of developments in their cases and he committed acts of moral turpitude three times.In mitigation, he had no prior discipline record and cooperated with the bar’s investigation. |