California Bar Journal
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA - OCTOBER 1998
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
spacer.gif (810 bytes)

California Bar Journal

The State Bar of California


REGULARS

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Front Page - October 1998
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
News
George calls court funding failure 'betrayal'
Court rejects rule to bare secrets
Chief justice, 3 associates seek retention from voters
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
You Need to Know
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Opinion
Farewell to an independent bar
The last few gasps of a dues bill
A look toward the future
Getting leaner on our own
Justices and politics don't mix
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Letters to the Editor
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Legal Tech - Deconstructing computer leases
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
New Products & Services
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
MCLE Self-Study
Amending Irrevocable Trusts
Self-Assessment Test
MCLE Calendar of Events
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Discipline
Ethics Byte - Clients still have right to secrecy
8-year attorney, disciplined 11 times, is finally disbarred
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Service Awards
Neiman receives bar's top honor for helping others
13 attorneys, 2 law firms cited for pro bono efforts
Foundation presents 32 scholarships to California law school students
LA County Bar wins national recognition

DISCIPLINE

spacer.gif (810 bytes)
8-year attorney, disciplined 11 times, is finally disbarred
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
An eight-year attorney who was first suspended just a year after he was admitted to the bar has been disbarred. Since becoming a California attorney in 1990, TERREL V. CONNOR [#146085], 45, of Baden, Austria, has been disciplined 11 times and has not been able to practice since 1992. The disbarment took effect July 8, 1998.

Connor's offenses include twice failing to pay bar dues (during his first three years of practice), failing to pass the professional responsibility exam, three times being involuntarily ordered inactive (for failure to answer a misconduct charge, violating probation and not following a disbarment recommendation), and suspensions from practice in 1993, 1994 and 1996.

Among the charges in the disbarment proceeding was his failure to keep his address current with the bar. Connor used his sister's Brooklyn address when he was living in Austria, but his mail, including that informing him of disciplinary proceedings against him, was not forwarded regularly.

Formal disciplinary charges began with a 1993 case which included failure to competently perform legal services, communi-cate with a client, return client files and refund advanced fees, as well as improperly withdrawing from employment. He also did not keep his address current, nor did he cooperate with the bar's inves-tigation.

The first discipline, imposed by the Supreme Court in 1993, required Connor to make restitution of $900 plus interest to a former client and to file quarterly probation reports.

When he did not do so, his probation was revoked in a 1994 default proceeding and he was placed on actual suspension for 11 months and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

Because he was living out of the country, Connor did not receive the order that he comply with rule 955 for several months. In addition, he had no clients to notify of his suspension, so he believed he was not obliged to comply.

Connor filed the affidavit when he learned he was mistaken.

Although it included notice of his Austria address, he did not notify officially notify the bar of a change of address. Mail from the bar continued to be sent to Brooklyn.

In 1996, Connor stipulated that he failed to timely comply with rule 955. As a result, he was placed on actual suspension for 18 months, with another order to file quarterly probation reports. He failed to do so.

"Each of the four disciplinary proceedings against [Connor] have included findings of culpability based upon either a failure to notify the State Bar of a current address and/or failure to comply with court-ordered probation or rule 955 requirements," wrote the court.

Connor's "unwillingness or inability to comply with these requirements has caused an exces-sive expenditure of time and effort on the part of the State Bar."