Elk Grove, CA 95758
8 February 2013 | Disbarred (12 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 09-O-10572 |
---|---|
1 September 2012 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (12 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 09-O-10572 |
20 November 2011 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 5 months ago) Ordered inactive 09-O-10572 |
4 October 2011 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 09-O-10572 (13 years, 7 months ago) |
28 April 2009 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 09-Q-11733 |
24 November 2008 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (16 years, 5 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 05-O-03452 |
22 April 2007 | Active (18 years ago) |
23 March 2007 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 1 month ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 05-O-03452 |
5 June 2006 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 05-O-03452 (18 years, 11 months ago) |
16 December 1980 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (44 years, 4 months ago) |
February 8, 2013 CYNTHIA ANN THOMAS [#96180], 58, of Elk Grove was disbarred Feb. 8, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Thomas failed to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar and her default was entered. The bar moved to disbar her under rule 5.85 of the Rules of Procedure because she made no move to set aside the default within 180 days.The charges were deemed admitted: Thomas engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by arguing a case before the state Supreme Court and using the phrase “attorney at law†in her correspondence while she was suspended and, by failing to tell her client about the suspension, she did not keep her client informed of significant developments.Thomas also was disciplined in 2007 for failing to communicate with a client.March 23, 2007 CYNTHIA A. THOMAS [#96180], 51, of Elk Grove was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 23, 2007. Thomas was appointed to represent a defendant who wished to appeal a state prison sentence of 25 years to life. She sent her client a copy of the appeal, in which she did not raise an issue the client wished to pursue because her research revealed it did not apply to his case. At the time, Proposition 66, which would have narrowed California's three strikes law, was before the voters. Thomas told her client if it passed, she would file a supplemental brief with the court and if it failed, she would file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.Although the measure was rejected by voters, Thomas did no further work on her client's matter. She did not communicate with him or provide the attorney general's response to her petition or any other materials the client requested.When the client tried to file a supplemental brief on his own, it was rejected because he was represented by counsel. Thomas did not tell the client that the court of appeal affirmed his sentence or advise him of his legal options. When he tried to file a pleading with the Supreme Court, it was rejected because the deadline had passed.Thomas stipulated that she failed to communicate with the client or provide his file.In mitigation, she has no discipline record in 26 years of practice and at the time of the misconduct, she was involved with medical and emotional problems associated with the hospitalization of her mother. |