Peter Adrian Acuna was admitted to the California Bar 29th November 1979, but has since been disbarred. Peter graduated from Southwestern University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NamePeter Adrian Acuna
First Admitted29 November 1979 (45 years, 5 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number90636

Contact

Phone Number626-281-8977
Fax Number626-281-8499

Schools

Law SchoolSouthwestern University SOL (Los Angeles CA)
Undergraduate SchoolWoodbury University (Burbank CA)

Address

Current Address1613 Chelsea Rd #311
San Marino, CA 91108
Map

History

28 March 1997Disbarred (28 years, 1 month ago)
Disbarment 92-O-12405
20 January 1996Not eligible to practice law in CA (29 years, 3 months ago)
21 March 1994Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-19269 (31 years, 1 month ago)
6 January 1994Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-19266 (31 years, 4 months ago)
14 September 1993Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 92-O-12405 (31 years, 7 months ago)
11 January 1993Active (32 years, 3 months ago)
15 May 1992Not eligible to practice law in CA (32 years, 12 months ago)
Discipline w/actual suspension 90-O-12143
1 April 1991Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 90-O-12143 (34 years, 1 month ago)
29 November 1979Admitted to the State Bar of California (45 years, 5 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

March 28, 1997

PETER ADRIAN ACUNA [#90636], 50, of San Marino was disbarred March 28, 1997, and ordered to comply with rule 955.

Acuna had requested review of two separate disciplinary proceedings which resulted in recommendations that he be actually suspended for 18 months in one matter and disbarred in another.

Both matters were consolidated by the State Bar Court for purposes of review. At the conclusion, the bar court review department recommended that Acuna be disbarred.

Former State Bar Court Hearing Judge Jennifer Gee had found that Acuna wilfully misinformed a client about the receipt of a settlement check, misappropriated more than $9,000 from four clients, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while on suspension, represented conflicting interests in one case and violated other ethical requirements.

"It is particularly disturbing that [Acuna's] prior discipline was a six-month actual suspension for acts of moral turpitude or dishonesty in mishandling client trust funds," said the review department.

Much of Acuna's objection to the disciplinary recommendation was based on constitutional challenges to the jurisdiction of the State Bar Court, procedural arguments concerning alleged errors in rulings by the hearing judge and challenges to specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Among other things, he also contended that the hearing judge was biased against him and that the State Bar prosecuted him in bad faith.

However, it was determined that Acuna's claims lacked merit and that the record supported most of the hearing judge's findings and conclusions.

In one of the cases under discussion, Acuna was hired by a client in 1989 to represent her in a personal injury matter. In 1991, he received a $20,000 settlement check for his client. After medical liens and his attorneys fees were paid, the client was entitled to about $5,500 in funds.

However, the balance of Acuna's client trust account dropped below that amount several times the next year. The client did not receive any funds after signing the settlement papers and when she inquired about the delay, Acuna falsely told her the check had not yet arrived.

In 1992, he finally sent her several checks which he characterized as advances on her settlement.

When the final accounting of her funds arrived, the client objected to the 40 percent contingency fee, but was told by Acuna that she had agreed to that figure if the matter went to trial. However, the client was never informed of a trial nor asked to make an appearance.

The bar's review judge found no "clear and convincing" evidence of a trial, although the record established that Acuna settled after filing suit and was entitled to the agreed 40 percent fee.

It was agreed that Acuna proved two mitigating circumstances: He provided free legal seminars to the Chinese community and voluntarily repaid misappropriated funds to his clients before disciplinary proceedings began.

However, he failed to provide extraordinary demonstration of good character with his witnesses, most of whom were unaware of the details of his misconduct. No mitigating weight was given to Acuna's contention of extreme personal and financial problems because he did not prove they caused his misconduct. The Supreme Court denied Acuna's petition for writ of review.