Bernard Neil Dickinson Jr was admitted to the California Bar 1st December 1981, but has since been disbarred. Bernard graduated from Golden Gate University SOL.
Lawyer Information
| Name | Bernard Neil Dickinson Jr |
|---|---|
| First Admitted | 1 December 1981 (43 years, 5 months ago) |
| Status | Disbarred |
| Bar Number | 99604 |
Contact
| Phone Number | 415-574-2081 |
|---|
Schools
| Law School | Golden Gate University SOL (San Francisco CA) |
|---|---|
| Undergraduate School | Golden Gate University (San Francisco CA) |
Address
| Current Address | 2000 Broadway Redwood City, CA 94063 |
|---|---|
| Map |
History
| 10 February 1999 | Disbarred (26 years, 2 months ago) Disbarment 96-O-06834 |
|---|---|
| 16 August 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 8 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-06834 |
| 8 June 1998 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (26 years, 11 months ago) Ordered inactive 96-O-06834 |
| 16 March 1998 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-06834 (27 years, 1 month ago) |
| 1 August 1983 | Active (41 years, 9 months ago) |
| 1 December 1981 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (43 years, 5 months ago) |
Discipline Summaries
February 10, 1999 BERNARD NEIL DICKINSON JR. [#99604], 67, of Redwood City was disbarred Feb. 10, 1999, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court. Dickinson stole $100,000 from his elderly, mentally incompetent client, illegally loaned another $100,000 of the client's money to a second client, tried to conceal his actions by filing false pleadings with the court, and finally entered into an agreement with the client's heir absolving himself of any personal liability. Dickinson represented a retired physician who was confined to a nursing home after suffering a stroke in 1984. By 1989, the doctor had become mentally incompetent to handle his own affairs.Dickinson was responsible for preparing his client's will and his tax returns and for handling his financial affairs. When the doctor died in 1995, he left an estate valued at approximately $1 million.Dickinson did not file state or federal tax returns for his client for 1989 and filed the returns late for three other years. Subsequently, the federal and state taxing authorities began levying on the doctor's property. They also assessed large deficiencies, vastly overstating the doctor's taxable income. Dickinson did nothing to protect his client or to obtain a return of the funds.Between 1989 and 1995, Dickinson received 56 checks from the doctor's account amounting to nearly $100,000. Some he wrote to himself using his power of attorney, others he convinced the doctor to write. He claimed most of the money was for his legal fees - $125 to $150 per hour for visiting the doctor in the rest home.About 1993, Dickinson began to represent a couple for whom he provided tax advice and prepared tax returns. He also helped them in their divorce.In July 1993, he loaned $50,000 of the doctor's money to the husband/client to pay the man's IRS debts and to provide money to the wife. The loan was secured by a third deed of trust on the man's home, although Dickinson did not have the home appraised or obtain a title report.Six months later, he made another $50,000 loan, again using the doctor's funds. He did not obtain any security for this loan. The client defaulted on both loans by September 1994, but Dickinson took no steps to collect upon the loans. He did not disclose the loans to the doctor.Dickinson became executor of the doctor's estate upon his death, but filed a false inventory of the estate, deliberately omitting a bank account with a balance of about $54,000. And although he listed the two loans to the other client, he did not mention that they were in default or that the estate was entitled to payment of accrued interest amounting to nearly $15,000 on the loans.Shortly after filing the misleading papers with the court, Dickinson agreed with the doctor's heir to resign as executor and waive any fees in exchange for not being held liable for his prior conduct. He did not tell the heir about the bank account, nor did he include it or the loans in subsequent documents.The State Bar Court found that Dickinson's misconduct included failure to perform legal services competently, failure to provide written disclosure of his relationship with the three different clients, representing clients with adverse interests, misappropriating client funds, failing to keep complete records of client funds and charging an unconscionable fee. His actions also constituted moral turpitude, the court said."Given the magnitude of (Dickinson's) misconduct and considering the length of time over which that misconduct occurred, there is no question that disbarment is the only appropriate discipline," wrote State Bar Court Judge Eugene E. Brott. |