Santa Ana, CA 92701-3403
10 September 2009 | Disbarred (15 years, 7 months ago) Disbarment 07-N-11195 |
---|---|
26 January 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 3 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-11195 |
19 October 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 07-N-11195 |
13 August 2008 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 07-N-11195 (16 years, 8 months ago) |
17 August 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-01465 |
20 November 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 05-O-01465 |
27 September 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-01465 (19 years, 7 months ago) |
16 September 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
27 December 1978 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (46 years, 4 months ago) |
September 10, 2009 CARLETON S. MILLS [#84854], 58, of Santa Ana was disbarred Sept. 10, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Mills did not comply with a 2006 disciplinary order that required him to comply with the rule — if his suspension exceeded 90 days — by submitting to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension.Failure to comply with Rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.The underlying discipline, imposed in a default proceeding, was imposed because Mills abandoned a client in a bankruptcy proceeding. The client had paid a $1,500 advance fee. He was ordered to make restitution.August 17, 2006 CARLETON SAUNER MILLS [#84854], 55, of Santa Ana was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 30 days and until he makes restitution and was ordered to take the MPRE. If the actual suspension exceeds 90 days, he must comply with rule 955; if it exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Aug. 17, 2006. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Mills withdrew from employment without protecting his client’s interests and he failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation.A client hired Mills to handle her bankruptcy matter, paying him $1,500 in advance fees. He did no work on the case and did not refund her fee.Although Mills did not participate in the disciplinary case, the bar court considered his 25 years of discipline-free practice as mitigation. |