Arnold Chin was admitted to the California Bar 16th December 1980, but is now resigned. Arnold graduated from Lincoln University.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Arnold Chin |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 16 December 1980 (43 years, 4 months ago) |
| Status | Resigned |
| Bar Number | 95797 |
Schools
| Law School | Lincoln University (CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | San Francisco State Unv (San Francisco CA) |
Address
| Current Address | PO Box 410231 San Francisco, CA 94141 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 16 March 2007 | Resigned (17 years, 1 month ago) Resignation with charges pending 07-Q-10271 |
|---|---|
| 24 January 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 3 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 07-Q-10271 |
| 18 May 2006 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (17 years, 11 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 02-O-13909 |
| 28 June 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-01196 (18 years, 10 months ago) |
| 18 June 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 03-O-02981 |
| 27 May 2005 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 02-O-13909 |
| 7 April 2005 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 02-O-13909 (19 years ago) |
| 23 September 2004 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 7 months ago) Ordered inactive 03-O-02981 |
| 14 July 2004 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 03-O-02981 (19 years, 9 months ago) |
| 16 December 1980 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (43 years, 4 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
May 18, 2006 ARNOLD CHIN [#95797], 58, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to comply with rule 955. The order took effect May 18, 2006. Chin stipulated to nine counts of misconduct in three cases.Chin represented a postal worker who had filed a hostile work environment claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chin filed a request that was granted but did no further work and eventually the complaint was dismissed.In a probate proceeding, Chin was hired by a man and his mother to represent their interests, which included two pieces of property in Burlingame and San Francisco. The clients provided a list of instructions on how to proceed. Chin did not respond to the clients, a new lawyer they hired or the lawyer representing the executor of the estate; they repeatedly sought tax documents, rental and other income and expense details and accountings of the estate. They also asked Chin to arrange for preparation and filing of income taxes.One of the lawyers received a notice of intent to foreclose on one of the properties and asked whether the loan would be brought current. Chin used $42,000 from the estate as payment on the property without the client’s permission.Chin stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently, respond to his client’s status inquiries, provide an accounting of client funds, release client files or take steps to avoid prejudice to his client.In the third matter, he admitted that he commingled personal and client funds in his client trust account.Chin was disciplined in 2005 for failing to perform legal services competently, return client phone calls or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and for im-properly withdrawing from employment.In mitigation, he experienced significant family turmoil over the past four years and both parents died.June 18, 2005 ARNOLD CHIN [#95797], 57, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, actually suspended for 60 days and until the State Bar Court terminates the suspension 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 June 18, 2005. In a default proceeding, the bar court found that Chin failed to perform with competence, inform a client of a significant development or cooperate with the bar’s investigation and he improperly withdrew from employment.He represented a client in a discrimination claim before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but did not notify his client about a pre-hearing conference and did not participate. The client filed a written response to a motion by the opposing party without benefit of counsel. Chin did not return the client’s phone calls and stopped working on her case, which ultimately was dismissed.In mitigation, Chin has no record of discipline in more than 20 years of practice. |