Robert Francis Graham was admitted to the California Bar 21st December 1977, but has since been disbarred. Robert graduated from Western State University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Robert Francis Graham |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 21 December 1977 (47 years, 6 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 76589 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Phone Number | 619-322-6867 |
| Fax Number | 619-426-4396 |
Schools
| Law School | Western State University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | San Diego State University (San Diego CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 629 3rd Ave Ste I Chula Vista, CA 91910 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 25 October 2013 | Disbarred (11 years, 7 months ago) Disbarment 11-N-19133 |
|---|---|
| 26 April 2013 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 1 month ago) Ordered inactive 11-N-19133 |
| 24 March 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 11-O-19133 |
| 9 January 2012 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-N-19133 (13 years, 5 months ago) |
| 9 October 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 09-O-12347 |
| 22 March 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-N-10894 (14 years, 3 months ago) |
| 14 December 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-15471 (14 years, 6 months ago) |
| 15 November 2010 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-12347 (14 years, 7 months ago) |
| 21 August 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 09-O-13288 |
| 3 February 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 4 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 06-O-14355 |
| 7 November 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (15 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 09-O-13288 |
| 14 December 2008 | Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 06-O-14355 (16 years, 6 months ago) |
| 18 October 2007 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 06-O-14355 (17 years, 8 months ago) |
| 21 December 1977 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (47 years, 6 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 25, 2013 ROBERT FRANCIS GRAHAM [#76589], 63, of Chula Vista was disbarred Oct. 25, 2013 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Graham was disbarred after his default was entered for failing to respond to allegations that he failed to comply with rule 9.20 as required by a 2011 disciplinary order. Because he made no effort to have the default set aside within 180 days, as required by rule 5.85 of the bar’s Rules of Procedure, he was disbarred and the charges against him were deemed admitted.Graham was disciplined in 2011 for depositing or commingling funds belonging to him in his client trust account and failing to provide legal services with competence, cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, provide an accounting to a client or comply with rule 9.20 on time. He was previously suspended in 2010 for not complying with the terms of a 2008 disciplinary order. The 2008 discipline was for seven counts of misconduct in a breach-of-contract action in which he represented a couple: failures to perform legal services competently, keep clients informed about developments in their case, communicate with clients, account for their funds, return a client file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.October 8, 2011 ROBERT FRANCIS GRAHAM, 61, of Chula Vista was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a one-year actual suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation, and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Oct. 8, 2011. Graham stipulated to seven counts of misconduct in four matters, including a failure to comply with a 2010 rule 9.20 requirement. He did not file with the State Bar Court a declaration stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension from practice.In one matter, he commingled personal funds in his client trust account and used the account to pay personal expenses.In a civil matter relating to a debt his client believed he was owed, Graham filed a complaint for damages but didn’t serve the defendants. He failed to appear for court dates and the matter was dismissed for a failure to prosecute.In another matter, he did not provide an accounting to a client who paid him $3,000 in advance fees. He did not respond to a State Bar investigator’s inquiries in that matter or two others.Graham has been disciplined twice before, although he had had no discipline record for more than 30 years. He had mental, physical, family and financial problems.August 21, 2010 ROBERT FRANCIS GRAHAM [#76589], 60, of Chula Vista was suspended for one year, stayed, and actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the suspension. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 21, 2010. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Graham did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 disciplinary order. He did not file one quarterly report or schedule a meeting with the Office of Probation or respond to its inquiries.In the underlying matter, Graham failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with a client, account for client funds, return client papers or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.December 14, 2008 ROBERT FRANCIS GRAHAM [#76589], 58, of Chula Vista was suspended for 30 days, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Dec. 14, 2008. Graham stipulated to seven counts of misconduct in a breach of contract action in which he represented a couple, who paid an advance fee of $2,500, against their former real estate agent. Although he filed a lawsuit, he did not respond to a motion to compel arbitration. The court then ordered the case to arbitration.He told defense counsel his clients were willing to participate in mediation or arbitration but did nothing to schedule the arbitration. The case ultimately was dismissed at Graham’s request but without his clients’ consent.He did not return his clients’ many phone calls or respond to a certified letter. They hired a new lawyer who asked for the file, an accounting of the clients’ funds and a refund of their fee, but Graham did not respond.Graham stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, keep clients informed about developments in their case, communicate with clients, account for their funds, return a client file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.In mitigation, he had family problems that required him to be away from his practice, he refunded the portion of the retainer that was not used for costs, and he has a history of extensive pro bono work. |