Gilroy, CA 95020
28 July 2000 | Disbarred (23 years, 9 months ago) Disbarment 96-O-07049 |
---|---|
20 November 1999 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (24 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-07049 |
28 May 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-07049 (25 years, 11 months ago) |
19 July 1995 | Active (28 years, 10 months ago) |
1 January 1994 | Inactive (30 years, 4 months ago) |
12 May 1993 | Active (31 years ago) |
1 January 1990 | Inactive (34 years, 4 months ago) |
16 May 1986 | Active (38 years ago) |
1 January 1985 | Inactive (39 years, 4 months ago) |
1 July 1982 | Active (41 years, 10 months ago) |
30 June 1982 | Inactive (41 years, 10 months ago) |
28 June 1982 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (41 years, 10 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
11 April 1980 | Inactive (44 years, 1 month ago) |
23 June 1978 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (45 years, 11 months ago) |
July 28, 2000 PHILIP LEONARD STIMAC [#80719], 49, of Gilroy was disbarred July 28, 2000, and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The State Bar Court recommended Stimac’s disbarment after finding five instances of misconduct, including filing unjust litigation, filing malicious litigation, making an unfounded claim, showing disrespect to the court and committing an act of moral turpitude.The discipline stems from a finding of the federal court that Stimac engaged in unjust and frivolous litigation in four lawsuits he filed against various agencies and officials of the federal government. They began with a claim that the Department of Education’s civil rights office did not properly handle Stimac’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated from his position at Gavilan Community College.A federal judge dismissed the first suit, filed in 1992, and was affirmed by the appellate court.Stimac filed another action in 1993, charging Attorney General Janet Reno and two assistant U.S. Attorneys who had defended the first action, charging they did not properly investigate his claims and engaged in a conspiracy against him. The action was dismissed and Stimac’s appeal was unsuccessful.He filed a third suit in 1995 on behalf of another client, making similar claims against many of the same defendants and others involved in the operation of community colleges, teachers unions and attorneys. That action was dismissed with prejudice when Stimac failed to respond to a defense motion for dismissal.Stimac’s fourth suit alleged a criminal RICO conspiracy among many of the same defendants and added others, including President Clinton. The action also alleged perjury and fraud.A fourth federal judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice and imposed $5,000 in sanctions under federal rule 11, which the judge said was designed to address the very problem presented by Stimac’s suit: “the problem of frivolous filings and the use of judicial procedures as a tool for harassment.†The judge’s order was affirmed on appeal.Bar court Judge Nancy Roberts Lonsdale said Stimac’s arguments in his trial brief were rambling and incoherent and found the federal courts had given him a fair hearing.She said he engaged in frivolous and unjust litigation, filed a frivolous lawsuit in bad faith for the purpose of harassing and maliciously injuring the defendants and that his conduct amounted to moral turpitude. In addition, Lonsdale said Stimac made unfounded claims in the lawsuit and that by his actions, he failed to maintain respect due to the courts.Stimac harassed a Department of Education employee, files or threatens litigation against anyone who attempts to curb his misconduct and “is not behaving in a professional manner,†Lonsdale said. “He abuses court processes to harass and punish those whom he perceives to be his enemies.†|