Daniel Joseph Sweeney was admitted to the California Bar 21st December 1977, but has since been disbarred. Daniel graduated from Southwestern University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NameDaniel Joseph Sweeney
First Admitted21 December 1977 (47 years, 4 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number78362

Contact

Phone Number818-841-9300

Schools

Law SchoolSouthwestern University SOL (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCatholic University of America (Washington DC)

Address

Current Address290 E Verdugo Ave #108
Burbank, CA 91502
Map

History

16 October 2014Disbarred (10 years, 6 months ago)
Disbarment 11-O-17979
19 May 2014Not eligible to practice law in CA (10 years, 11 months ago)
Ordered inactive 11-O-17979
2 July 2013Not eligible to practice law in CA (11 years, 10 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pay fees
14 January 2013Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 3 months ago)
Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 10-O-05855
6 December 2012Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 11-O-17979 (12 years, 4 months ago)
3 January 2012Active (13 years, 4 months ago)
24 November 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 5 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 10-O-05855
22 July 2011Active (13 years, 9 months ago)
1 July 2011Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago)
Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance
1 February 2011Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 10-O-05855 (14 years, 3 months ago)
21 October 1993Public reproval 93-H-12614 (31 years, 6 months ago)
1 October 1992Public reproval with/duties 90-O-12361 (32 years, 7 months ago)
19 December 1991Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-12361 (33 years, 4 months ago)
21 December 1977Admitted to the State Bar of California (47 years, 4 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

October 16, 2014

DANIEL JOSEPH SWEENEY [#78362], 66, of Burbank, was disbarred Oct. 16, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court initially found Sweeney culpable of disobeying a court order and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended a one-year suspension. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel sought review, arguing that his misconduct warranted greater discipline.

In concluding that Sweeney should be disbarred, a three-judge review panel agreed with the court’s findings of culpability but noted that the “risk is high that he will commit future misconduct if permitted to continue practicing law.”

Starting in 2007, Sweeney represented a man in his divorce proceedings. In April 2011, the court imposed discovery sanctions totaling $15,000 against Sweeney and his client. Neither he nor his client paid them by the court-ordered deadline. After the deadline, he filed an appeal on his client’s behalf – but not on his own – and did not obtain an order staying enforcement of the sanctions order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed and the client belatedly complied and paid the money.

The panel also found that Sweeney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law on two dates when he was not eligible because he failed to meet his Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirements by the deadline.

Sweeney had three prior records of discipline. In 1992, he was publicly reproved after he stipulated that he failed to keep his client informed, competently perform or return his client’s papers and property. The following year, he stipulated that he failed to comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation by not filing two reports to probation on time.

In 2011, he was suspended after stipulating to misconduct in one client matter. Sweeney provided no services of value to a client in a child support matter. He also performed incompetently and failed to provide an accounting, refund unearned fees or cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.

November 24, 2011

DANIEL JOSEPH SWEENEY [#78362], 63, of Burbank was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 24, 2011.

Sweeney stipulated that he committed four acts of misconduct while representing a client with child support problems. The client mistakenly thought that he could get the arrearage greatly reduced by a retroactive modification to the child support order, but such modifications are forbidden by statute. He provided incomplete financial records to Sweeney, and the two miscommunicated. When it became clear to Sweeney that the client’s beliefs were mistaken, he did nothing to correct them.

The client complained that he had not received an accounting of his fees, sought a refund and complained to the bar.

Sweeney stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, account for client funds, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

Sweeney was publicly reproved in 1993 and failed to comply with probation conditions.