X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
DISBARMENT The following persons have been disbarred by the California Supreme Court, effective on the dates indicated. They are ineligible to practice law, and their names have been stricken from the roster of California attorneys. They must comply with Rule 955 of the California Rules of the Court. Susan Jo Magar, Chicago, Dec. 12 RESIGNATION WITH CHARGES PENDING The following persons have resigned as members of the State Bar of California. They are ineligible to practice law in the state of California, effective on the dates indicated. James Creighton Harvey, Lincoln, Dec. 12 Marco Eloy Lopez, San Jose, Dec. 12 RESIGNATION WITH NO CHARGES PENDING The following persons have resigned as members of the California State Bar and their resignations have been accepted by the California Supreme Court. They are ineligible to practice law in the state of California, effective on the dates indicated. Donald Paul Vernier Jr., Hagatna, Guam, Dec. 12 George William Howard, Hamilton, N.Y., Dec. 12 SUSPENSION The following persons have been suspended by the California Supreme Court, effective on the dates indicated. Unless otherwise noted, they are required to pass the professional responsibility exam specified in the court order and to comply with Rule 955 of the California Rules of Court: Elliott Friedman, Martinez, Dec. 12. Suspended for one year. Three years’ probation with conditions. Brenda Malloy, Ireland, Dec. 12. Suspended for 120 days and until State Bar Court grants motion to terminate suspension. If the period of actual suspension is two years or greater, remain suspended until shows proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability in the general law. # Edward Joseph Stopyro, Irvine, Dec. 12. Suspended for one year and until shows proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice and learning and ability in the general law. Credit shall be given for the period of interim suspension, which commenced on Dec. 28, 2001. Three years’ probation with conditions. # Not required to comply with Rule 955 of the California Rules of the Court

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.