Pasadena, CA 91101-1554
10 October 2003 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-H-12214 (21 years, 8 months ago) |
---|---|
9 August 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 00-H-12214 (24 years, 10 months ago) |
24 January 1998 | Public reproval with/duties 95-O-16558 (27 years, 4 months ago) |
29 July 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 95-O-16558 (28 years, 10 months ago) |
22 December 1976 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (48 years, 5 months ago) |
October 10, 2003 MEIR J. WESTREICH [#73133], 52, of Pasadena was suspended for six months, stayed, and placed on one year of probation. The order took effect Oct. 10, 2003. A State Bar Court judge recommended a stayed suspension for Westreich after he did not comply with three of four probation conditions attached to a public reproval in 1998. The stay was recommended because Westreich was seriously ill after the public reproval and because of favorable character testimony. Westreich sought review, arguing that his illnesses and other personal circumstances warrant only an admonition. The bar court's review department acknowledged Westreich's problems, but found that during the year he did not comply with probation conditions, he traveled extensively and engaged in both legal and personal business matters. It found that the stayed suspension was not excessive. The public reproval was imposed for Westreich's conduct in his client's malpractice case against another lawyer. Westreich thought the client had agreed the case should be dropped, but he did not confirm this with the client. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, but Westreich did not receive the notice because he had relocated his office. He had several conversations with his client about the lawsuit without ever telling her "specifically and definitively" that it was dismissed. The court gave mitigating weight to Westreich's considerable pro bono and community service in a variety of political and social causes. Westreich suffered a series of serious injuries and health problems and sought three extensions to comply with his probation. Nonetheless, the court found that he did not comply with probation conditions in a timely manner. |