Donald Bruce Kronenberg

Donald Bruce Kronenberg was admitted to the California Bar 12th June 1981, but is now resigned. Donald graduated from Western State University.

Lawyer Information

Name	Donald Bruce Kronenberg
First Admitted	12 June 1981 (42 years, 10 months ago)
Status	Resigned
Bar Number	98590

Contact

Phone Number	206-624-5555

Schools

Law School	Western State University (CA)
Undergraduate School	University of California Santa Barbara (CA)

Address

Current Address	P O Box 20254 Seattle, WA 98102
Map

History

9 April 2006	Resigned (18 years ago) Resignation with charges pending 06-Q-10468
1 February 2006	Not eligible to practice law in CA (18 years, 2 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 06-Q-10468
7 August 2004	Not eligible to practice law in CA (19 years, 8 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 04-PM-10407
12 April 2004	Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years ago) Ordered inactive 04-PM-10407
6 February 2004	Not eligible to practice law in CA (20 years, 2 months ago) Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 00-J-15199
15 November 2002	Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 5 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 00-J-15199
1 January 2002	Inactive (22 years, 4 months ago)
3 July 2000	Active (23 years, 10 months ago)
1 January 1989	Inactive (35 years, 4 months ago)
12 June 1981	Admitted to the State Bar of California (42 years, 10 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

August 7, 2004

DONALD BRUCE KRONENBERG [#98590], 52, of Seattle was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for two years and until he proves his rehabilitation. He was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit will be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began April 12. The order took effect Aug. 7, 2004.

Kronenberg failed to comply with probationary conditions attached to a 2002 stipulation: he did not submit a probation report or proof that he completed six hours of MCLE courses.

The discipline was the result of misconduct committed in Washington in connection with three client matters. The court found it would warrant discipline in California for charging an unconscionable fee, making misrepresentations to a tribunal, and failing to preserve client funds properly or keep clients reasonably informed.

Kronenberg defaulted in the probation revocation proceeding.

November 15, 2002

DONALD BRUCE KRONENBERG [#98590], 51, of Seattle was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove his rehabilitation, take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 15, 2002.

Kronenberg stipulated to 12 counts of misconduct in two client matters in Washington. The misconduct, had it been committed in California, would warrant discipline here.

He failed to deposit client funds in a trust account, inform a client of his receipt of funds, provide an accounting of funds, keep a client reasonably informed about the status of his matter, and he charged an unconscionable fee, made a false statement to the court, pursued an unjustified action and misappropriated client funds.

In the first matter, he handled both a collection of child support and a child custody matter for a client. The client signed a contingency retainer agreement which gave Kronenberg 50 percent of what he collected in back child support payments. He was paid on an hourly basis in the child custody case.

The wages of the client's ex-husband were garnished and he agreed to a volun- tary wage assignment of $500 per month.

Kronenberg received six garnishment checks, but he did not give any money to his client. When he received $500 from the wage assignment, he gave his client $100, which was returned to him since the client moved.

The billing statement for the back support matter showed his client owed him more than $14,000, less about $1,100 she had received. Each monthly statement then reflected an increase in the balance for the costs of the garnishments, a decrease for any garnishment funds received and compounded interest of up to 1.6 percent on the unpaid balance.

A second monthly billing statement reflected work done on the child support matter and the balance owed for the fee, but it did not reflect the receipt of garnishments to pay the fee.

When the client learned about the garnishments nearly five years later, Kronen-berg said he was entitled to keep the funds until they equaled 50 percent of the support judgment.

In another case, Kronenberg represented a client who was seeking crime victim compensation as a result of a shooting. He hired Kronenberg to appeal the denial of his claim, and the client was awarded $15,000.

After receiving one installment, the client received the balance of his award by telling the Department of Labor and Industries that Kronenberg no longer represented him and that they had settled up. He gave a letter to that effect to his father, who picked up the check.

When Kronenberg learned of the client's actions, he sued him and his father for his fee, claiming the client, with his father's help, was about to leave the state with the intent to defraud his creditors. There was no basis for that statement.

He also falsely claimed the father acted with the intent to defraud him. He obtained a pre-judgment writ of attachment against the father without legal grounds.

In mitigation, Kronenberg has no prior record of discipline, and he cooperated with the bar's investigation.

Donald Kronenberg