Phillip Mathew Connor was admitted to the California Bar 10th September 1976, but has since been disbarred. Phillip graduated from Western State University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Phillip Mathew Connor |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 10 September 1976 (48 years, 9 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 69702 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 619-589-0881 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Western State University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Kansas State University (Manhattan KS) |
Address
| Current Address | P O Box 191007 San Diego, CA 92119-1007 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 20 July 2002 | Disbarred (22 years, 11 months ago) Disbarment 01-N-03771 |
|---|---|
| 16 February 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 4 months ago) Ordered inactive 01-N-03771 |
| 19 January 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 01-N-03771 |
| 25 October 2001 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-N-03771 (23 years, 8 months ago) |
| 9 August 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-11575 |
| 18 November 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-11575 |
| 9 September 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-11575 (25 years, 9 months ago) |
| 30 June 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (25 years, 11 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 95-O-15671 |
| 29 August 1997 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 95-O-15671 (27 years, 9 months ago) |
| 9 May 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-15671 (29 years, 1 month ago) |
| 10 September 1976 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (48 years, 9 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
July 20, 2002 PHILIP MATTHEW CONNOR [#69702], 54, of San Diego was disbarred July 20, 2002, and ordered to comply with rule 955. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Connor failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in a 2001 disciplinary order. The underlying discipline was imposed as a result of Connor's failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 1997 discipline. That discipline was the result of his failure to respond to a client's inquiries, properly withdraw from employment or cooperate with a bar investigation.August 9, 2001 PHILLIP MATHEW CONNOR [#69702], 53, of San Diego was suspended for two years, stayed, and actually suspended for six months and until he completes ethics school and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. He was also ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug. 9, 2001. The bar court’s review department upheld a finding by the hearing judge that Connor failed to comply with 1997 probation conditions —- he did not submit quarterly reports or attend ethics school. The review department also found that Connor did not pass the MPRE, a finding not made by the hearing judge.The underlying discipline was the result of improperly withdrawing from employment, failing to respond to a client’s status inquiries and failing to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.August 29, 1997 PHILLIP MATTHEW CONNOR [#69702], 49, of San Diego was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on probation for one year, effective Aug. 29, 1997. He was ordered to pass the MPRE. In this decision, Connor was found culpable of failing to respond to a client’s reasonable case status inquiries, improperly withdrawing from the case and failing to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of the matter. Connor was hired by a client to file a lawsuit in connection with a collection matter, but he failed to do so and did not respond to his client’s inquiries over a six-month period. In mitigation, Connor has no prior record of discipline since his admission to the bar in 1976. In aggravation, the hearing department of the State Bar Court found that Connor’s failure to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges indicated a lack of candor and cooperation prior to entry of default. Because of Connor’s lengthy period of practice without prior discipline and the relatively minor nature of the misconduct, "at first blush a reproval may have been warranted," wrote the court. However, because Connor did not file a response to the disciplinary charges, no information was available to explain his misconduct. "These factors signal the need for harsher discipline, including a period of probation. It is hoped that [Connor] will view this as a wake up call," wrote the bar court judge. |