Solvang, CA 93464
17 April 2008 | Resigned (17 years ago) Resignation with charges pending 07-Q-13546 |
---|---|
13 September 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 7 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 07-Q-13546 |
16 August 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
29 July 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-O-00224 |
22 November 2002 | Active (22 years, 5 months ago) |
20 October 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 6 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 02-O-10676 |
18 April 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-10676 (23 years ago) |
12 August 1998 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 96-O-05639 (26 years, 9 months ago) |
5 March 1998 | Active (27 years, 2 months ago) |
5 January 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-05639 |
14 October 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-05639 (27 years, 6 months ago) |
18 December 1975 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (49 years, 4 months ago) |
October 20, 2002 EDWARD DUFF HUME [#66261], 54, of Redwood City was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension. The order took effect Oct. 20, 2002. Hume failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1998 discipline. He filed five quarterly probation reports late, did not file five reports, and did not complete ethics school by the required deadline.The underlying discipline was the result of his failure to perform legal services competently or communicate with clients. (Oct. 3, 2002)August 12, 1998 EDWARD D. HUME [#66261], 49, of Redwood City was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Aug. 12, 1998. Hume stipulated to one count of failure to perform legal services competently and one count of failure to respond to his client's requests for information.In 1988, Hume was retained to prepare a Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) following his client's divorce. The purpose of the QDRO was to dispose of the community property interests of the ex-husband's retirement benefits with his employer. Hume prepared a draft QDRO and submitted it to both his client and her ex-husband. From 1989 through 1995, Hume communicated with the administrators of the retirement plan and the ex-husband's attorney in order to identify the community property portion and its division and share valuation.When the ex-husband's attorney prepared a revised QDRO, Hume's client reviewed it and sent him a list of questions and proposed changes. Hume promised a revised copy to his client by Jan. 31, 1996. Despite phone calls and letters, the final QDRO wasn't completed until July 1996.Hume did not inform his client that as a result of his failure to complete the QDRO, she did not have a perfected right to receive the community property funds that were the subject of the QDRO.In mitigation, Hume has no prior record of discipline, and he reimbursed his client $1,000. |