David Eric Brockway was admitted to the California Bar 4th October 1977, but has since been disbarred. David graduated from University of Iowa COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | David Eric Brockway |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 4 October 1977 (47 years, 7 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 75442 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 626-588-2003 |
|---|---|
| Fax Number | 626-588-2113 |
Schools
| Law School | University of Iowa COL (Iowa City IA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | University of Iowa (Iowa City IA) |
Address
| Current Address | Root & Brockway, PO Box 10636 Marina Del Rey, CA 90295-6636 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 30 December 2007 | Disbarred (17 years, 4 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-10610 |
|---|---|
| 22 July 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 9 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10610 |
| 12 May 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-10610 |
| 7 October 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 01-O-03470 |
| 18 September 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 14 November 2003 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-03470 (21 years, 5 months ago) |
| 15 August 1991 | Active (33 years, 8 months ago) |
| 15 May 1991 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (33 years, 12 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 83-O-10764 |
| 30 December 1985 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 85-O-00269 (39 years, 4 months ago) |
| 4 October 1977 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (47 years, 7 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
December 30, 2007 DAVID ERIC BROCKWAY [#75442], 60, of Marina del Rey was disbarred Dec. 30, 2007, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Brockway failed to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court (since renumbered as rule 9.20). He did not submit to the court an affidavit attesting that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension from practice.In the underlying discipline, Brockway committed 14 acts of misconduct in four client matters. He had accepted several thousand dollars in fees from Asian immigrants who had pressing legal problems and then failed to perform any work. The bar court found that Brockway failed to perform legal services competently, render an accounting, promptly return unearned fees, communicate with clients or release client files, and he improperly withdrew from employment. The court also rejected virtually all of his explanations for his misconduct as not credible.Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.October 7, 2006 DAVID ERIC BROCKWAY [#75442], 59, of Marina del Rey was suspended for five years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an actual two-year suspension and until he has proved his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 7, 2006. The State Bar Court’s hearing department upheld the findings of a review judge that Brockway committed 14 acts of misconduct in four client matters. However, the review department increased the recommended discipline from a one-year stayed suspension to a five-year stayed suspension.The review department found that Brockway accepted several thousand dollars in fees from Asian immigrants who had pressing legal problems and then failed to perform any work. Brockway, who appealed the hearing judge’s findings, said he had no duty to perform the work, communicate with his clients or account for unearned fees because in each of the four cases in question, he entered into a “true retainer†fee agreement that secured only his availability, not his services. The former clients, however, said they hired Brockway to handle immediate legal problems and that he abandoned them, to their detriment.The court found Brockway failed to perform legal services competently, render an accounting, promptly return unearned fees, communicate with clients or release client files, and he improperly withdrew from employment. The court also rejected virtually all of his explanations for his misconduct as not credible.The first client, a Vietnamese woman who neither speaks nor reads English, paid Brockway $5,800 to obtain legal immigration status for her daughter-in-law. From the outset, Brockway recognized that the daughter-in-law was in grave danger of arrest and deportation but he did not contact his client for 10 months. The client called him 21 times and Brockway’s interpreter returned some calls.She hired a new lawyer who did not receive the file from Brockway for several months, and it consisted of only three pages of a partially completed asylum application.The client missed the filing deadline for an adjustment to her status, in part due to Brockway’s inaction and his lack of cooperation with the new lawyer. The client sued Brockway in small claims for a return of her fee; he appealed the judgment but failed to appear at a hearing and the client was awarded $5,000. Brockway paid after his motion to set aside the judgment was denied.A Mandarin-speaking client paid Brockway $4,500 to handle six traffic violations he had received as a tour bus operator in Arizona. The client testified that he made clear he faced points on his insurance and the loss of his California driver’s license. He was told the fee was so high because it would cover Brockway’s travel and living expenses in Arizona.Brockway said he traveled to Arizona the next day, 10 days before the client was to report to traffic court, and spoke to the clerk, who advised him to pay the bail. He said he mailed a money order to the court “and that took care of the matter as far as I was concerned.†He provided no evidence of his travel or expenses.Six months later the client’s California driver’s license was suspended, he lost his job and was unemployed for six months. He repeatedly called Brockway’s employee, who either avoided the calls or hung up on him.Brockway agreed to refund $2,500 following mediation over a fee dispute.Another client, a Chinese-speaking woman who was a rape victim, paid Brockway $5,000 to assist in a criminal investigation. Brockway’s assistant advised her she could receive $200,000 in “reparations†for her injuries. She met with Brockway only once.During the following two years, Brockway never asked the woman to obtain any psychological or medical evaluation and she finally demanded a refund. Brockway eventually refunded the entire fee.In the fourth matter, a couple who owned a small Chinese herb business was denied a visa renewal and had 30 days to appeal. Brockway testified that he told the couple they were not eligible for legal status and should wait a year or two to prove that their business was a going concern that was profitable. He said he told them he would “resubmit the application kind of going through the back door rather than appeal to a proper authority with the INS.†The court found Brockway’s testimony was not believable.After a year, the clients hired a new lawyer and requested the return of their file and the $6,500 fee. When the file was returned, it contained nothing but the papers the woman originally provided to Brockway. They sued Brockway, who paid $12,500 in settlement.Bar prosecutors asked that Brockway be disbarred, and although the review judges found that his inaction exacerbated his clients’ “desperate situations,†they rejected the request. |