Patricia Leigh Reber was admitted to the California Bar 29th November 1978, but has since been disbarred. Patricia graduated from Peoples COL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Patricia Leigh Reber |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 29 November 1978 (45 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 84460 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 323-254-5805 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Peoples COL (Los Angeles CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Memphis St University (Memphis TN) |
Address
| Current Address | 4470 Sunset Blvd #133 Los Angeles, CA 90027 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 5 October 2002 | Disbarred (21 years, 7 months ago) Disbarment 01-N-04848 |
|---|---|
| 18 April 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years ago) Ordered inactive 01-N-04848 |
| 1 March 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 2 months ago) Ordered inactive 01-N-04848 |
| 9 January 2002 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-N-04848 (22 years, 3 months ago) |
| 19 August 2001 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (22 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 99-O-12717 |
| 17 November 2000 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (23 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 99-O-12717 |
| 29 September 2000 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 99-O-12717 (23 years, 7 months ago) |
| 29 November 1978 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (45 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
October 5, 2002 PATRICIA LEIGH REBER [#84460], 62, of Los Angeles was disbarred Oct. 5, 2002, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. Reber did not meet the requirements of a 2001 disciplinary order that she comply with rule 955 by notifying her clients, opposing counsel and the courts that she was suspended and then submitting an affidavit to that effect with the Supreme Court. Failure to comply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.The underlying discipline was imposed for failure to perform legal services competently, respond to client inquiries, provide an accounting of fees or refund fees. She also charged an unconscionable fee. Reber's default was entered in the original discipline and in the disbarment proceeding.August 19, 2001 PATRICIA L. REBER [#84460], 61, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, and actually suspended for six months and until she pays $1,000 in restitution and the bar court grants a motion to terminate. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, she must prove her rehabilitation. She also was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Aug. 19, 2001. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Reber intentionally failed to perform legal services, respond to client inquiries, provide an accounting of fees or refund fees and that she charged an illegal fee.Reber was court-appointed counsel representing an indigent client in her appeal from a 1995 burglary conviction. The client was incarcerated at the time.Reber was appointed through the Sixth District Appellate Program (SDAP) and was not entitled to payment by the client. To receive state compensation, the court-appointed attorney must submit a written fee claim to the state.Reber filed the appeal and advised the client that a petition for writ of habeas corpus should also be filed; she also asked the client twice for advance payment to pursue the writ. The client paid Reber a total of $1,000 in legal fees to pursue the habeas corpus petition.Meanwhile, a petition for review was still pending, and it was denied in February 1998. Reber did not inform the client of the denial. The client’s brother learned about it after contacting Reber in March 1999, and soon after the client requested a copy of the ruling. Reber did not provide it.The client also asked for the status of the habeas corpus petition and for an accounting of the legal fees paid. Reber did not respond.Because the client was not informed that the petition for review was denied, she forfeited her right to seek a rehearing and to seek federal relief. Because the petition for writ of habeas corpus was never filed, she lost her right to further state appeals.Reber never returned the client’s fees.In aggravation, she committed multiple acts of wrongdoing, and her conduct was surrounded by bad faith and overreaching since the client was indigent and incarcerated at the time. The misconduct significantly harmed the client.In mitigation, Reber had no prior record of discipline in 18 years of practice. |