Westlake Village, CA 91362
12 June 2014 | Disbarred (11 years ago) Disbarment 13-O-10582 |
---|---|
12 January 2014 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 13-O-10582 |
30 July 2013 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 13-O-10582 (11 years, 10 months ago) |
2 July 2008 | Active (16 years, 11 months ago) |
4 April 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 2 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-01220 |
26 March 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-01220 (18 years, 2 months ago) |
22 December 1976 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (48 years, 6 months ago) |
June 12, 2014 NEAL RONALD SAFRAN [#72491], 64, of Westlake Village was disbarred June 12, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Safran stipulated to failing to maintain client funds in his client trust account and misappropriation. In 2009, Safran was hired to represent a man in his personal injury claim. The case settled and Safran dispersed part of the settlement funds to the client but did not give him $12,899.66 he was due. Between May 19, 2011 and Feb. 13, 2013, the balance in his client trust account dropped below $12,899.66 on multiple occasions.As a result of Safran’s actions, one of the client’s medical liens was sent to a collection agency, and he had to use his own funds to pay it. Safran repaid the misappropriated money after the client filed a complaint with the State Bar.Safran had one prior record of discipline, an April 2008 suspension for misconduct in two client matters. He failed to promptly notify a client of receipt of funds, promptly pay client funds or communicate with a client.April 4, 2008 NEAL RONALD SAFRAN [#72491], 58, of Westlake Village was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect April 4, 2008. Safran stipulated to three acts of misconduct in a personal injury case involving two clients whose car collided with a Los Angeles County bus. State Farm issued two checks to Safran, one for each client, but he did not notify them that he’d received any money and deposited it in his trust account.The insurance company sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which in turn sued Safran’s clients. State Farm hired another attorney to represent them, as provided in their policy. When they were notified about the cross-complaint, they contacted Safran who told them not to respond to State Farm’s request for an appointment.Nonetheless, one of the clients called State Farm and learned that the insurer had issued checks to Safran and to a car rental agency and an auto body shop. When questioned by one client, Safran’s employee said he was holding the money in trust and the clients would receive their share if they signed affidavits dismissing their case. They did so and the case was dismissed. At the time, Safran had not paid the clients’ doctors.He withheld the clients’ settlement money for 16 months, did not pay the doctors for more than three years and repeatedly told the clients there was no progress on their claims after he received their settlement checks.Safran stipulated that he failed to notify clients of his receipt of funds or promptly pay out the funds, or keep clients informed of developments in their cases.In mitigation, he has no record of discipline in more than 30 years of practice. |