Carey Brent Scott was first admitted to the California Bar 30th May 1980, but is now no longer eligible to practice. Carey graduated from McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Carey Brent Scott |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 30 May 1980 (44 years, 11 months ago) |
| Status | Not Eligible to Practice |
| Bar Number | 91813 |
Contact
| Current Email | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Previous Email | [email protected] |
| Phone Number | 949-750-6682 |
| Fax Number | (949) 606-8105 |
Schools
| Law School | McGeorge SOL University of the Pacific (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Brigham Young University (Provo UT) |
Address
| Current Address | Law Offices, 31103, Rancho Viejo Road, Suite D2034 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 |
|---|---|
| Map | |
| Previous Address | 311A Marigold Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 |
History
| 1 October 2020 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 7 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
|---|---|
| 1 October 2020 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 7 months ago) Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance |
| 19 April 2019 | Active (6 years ago) |
| 17 May 2017 | Inactive (7 years, 11 months ago) |
| 23 February 2017 | Active (8 years, 2 months ago) |
| 1 February 2016 | Inactive (9 years, 3 months ago) |
| 22 September 2010 | Active (14 years, 7 months ago) |
| 1 September 2010 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (14 years, 8 months ago) Suspended, failed to pay fees |
| 12 August 2003 | Active (21 years, 8 months ago) |
| 13 June 2003 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-17860 |
| 17 December 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-17860 (28 years, 4 months ago) |
| 5 January 1983 | Active (42 years, 4 months ago) |
| 1 January 1982 | Inactive (43 years, 4 months ago) |
| 30 May 1980 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (44 years, 11 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
June 13, 2003 CAREY BRENT SCOTT [#91813], 60, of San Clemente was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect June 13, 2003. The State Bar Court’s review department upheld a hearing judge’s recommended discipline based on his finding that Scott filed a frivolous lawsuit in bad faith and for a corrupt motive.Scott filed four related lawsuits; after each action was resolved unfavorably, he filed the next. The hearing judge found that his actions in the first three suits did not warrant discipline but he “crossed the line†in filing the final suit.State Bar prosecutors sought review, asserting that Scott should be disciplined for filing the first three suits. Scott also sought review, arguing he did nothing wrong. The review department upheld the hearing judge’s original findings for the most part.The case originated with Scott’s representation of a client injured in an industrial accident. A union official became concerned that Scott was not properly representing the client, and he urged the client to talk to another firm, Silver, McWilliams, Stolpman, Mandel & Katzman of Long Beach. Although the client consulted with the other firm, he continued to be represented by Scott.The case settled for $5.2 million and Scott received $1.6 million in legal fees.Before the settlement, Scott sued the other firm (lawsuit #1) for intentional interference with contract, for allegedly interfering with his retainer agreement and for defamation for allegedly making false statements to the client about Scott.Scott said he filed the suit to put a stop to the firm’s practices, to get the attention of the defendants, to recover damages and to teach the defendants a lesson. After a six-day trial, the court granted a judgment of nonsuit in favor of the defendants and awarded sanctions against Scott of $218,299 for filing a frivolous lawsuit in bad faith.After the sanctions were awarded but before the written order was signed, Scott moved to disqualify the trial judge, James R. Ross, arguing that he was biased.He unsuccessfully appealed the judgment and sanctions before filing a federal action (lawsuit #2) charging that the judge, two Silver attorneys and defense counsel in the first lawsuit violated his civil rights. The case was dismissed.Scott then filed a third lawsuit alleging that the judge and various attorneys in lawsuit #1 concealed material facts and won the judgment and sanctions by fraud. A bench trial was held and the case was dismissed.One week later, Scott filed lawsuit #4, alleging civil rights violations and defamation by the judge and fraudulent billing by defense counsel in lawsuit #1. The factual allegations were virtually identical to the allegations in lawsuits #2 and #3. The court ruled against Scott.The defendants recovered about $130,000 of the sanctions amount; the remainder apparently was discharged as a result of Scott’s bankruptcy.The hearing judge ruled, and the review department agreed, that by filing the fourth lawsuit, Scott raised claims that already had been litigated and/or were not meritorious, and by filing a frivolous action intentionally or with gross negligence, he committed an act of moral turpitude. |