Richard Dana Williams was admitted to the California Bar 30th May 1980, but is now resigned. Richard graduated from Santa Clara University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Richard Dana Williams |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 30 May 1980 (45 years ago) |
| Status | Resigned |
| Bar Number | 92376 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 408-295-6336 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Santa Clara University SOL (Santa Clara CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Santa Clara University (Santa Clara CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 79 Devine St #A San Jose, CA 95110 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 30 November 1997 | Resigned (27 years, 6 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 97-Q-16495 |
|---|---|
| 1 October 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 8 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 97-Q-16495 |
| 31 July 1997 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (27 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 94-O-16619 |
| 16 July 1997 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 97-H-14127 (27 years, 11 months ago) |
| 15 December 1996 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (28 years, 6 months ago) Ordered inactive 94-O-16619 |
| 1 October 1996 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 94-O-16619 (28 years, 8 months ago) |
| 23 June 1996 | Public reproval with/duties 95-C-17340 (29 years ago) |
| 17 November 1995 | Conviction record transmitted to State Bar Court 95-C-17340 (29 years, 7 months ago) |
| 30 May 1980 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (45 years ago) |
Discipline Summaries
September 24, 1997 RICHARD DANA WILLIAMS [#92376], 44, of San Jose was placed on interim suspension Sept. 24, 1997, following his felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance and possessing drug paraphernalia. He also was ordered to comply with rule 955. July 31, 1997 RICHARD DANA WILLIAMS [#92376], 44, of San Jose was suspended for three years, stayed, and placed on probation for four years on the condition that he is actually suspended for two years and until he has shown proof of his fitness to practice law. He also was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order was effective July 31, 1997. Williams' misconduct involved his failure to advise two clients of a potential conflict of interest by his joint representation of them and filing false and frivolous allegations of collusion by a federal office.In January 1994, Williams was hired to represent a couple who were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Western District of Tennessee.The indictment followed a search of the couple's northern California home by the U.S. Postal Inspector and the seizure of property belonging to the clients.Williams represented both clients, one of whom was found guilty on 11 counts and the other on 10 counts.Williams did not inform the clients that there was a potential and/or actual conflict of interest in his representation of both of them.He then filed a pleading in northern California alleging that his clients and the court had been victims of fraud and deception by the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. Magistrate Judge and his staff, and possibly the federal court's own clerk.He later filed another pleading which attempted to relate his clients' criminal matters to unrelated litigation then pending in the northern district of California.In August 1994, a federal judge denied Williams' requests to relate the cases for an evidentiary hearing, characterizing his papers as "nearly incoherent" and his allegations as "patently frivolous" and "patently false."The judge also advised Williams to "inform his clients that at least one court has raised serious doubts as to his ability to practice law and ably represent them in this matter."In another matter, the bar found that Williams recklessly failed to perform legal services and respond to a client's reasonable case status inquiries. |