Quote:
Originally Posted by crashjr
As sba9630 pointed out in the other thread, the1 year suspension was stayed, 30 days actual suspension, and he was reinstated on April 4 (which I somehow missed on my first glance at the state bar web page - my apologies).
I also missed it the first time I read it and went back and looked again because this entry on the California Bar page for his current status didn't make sense (if he'd been suspended for a year):
Quote:
4/4/2009 Active
3/5/2009 Not Eligible To Practice Law
The narrative of what he was disciplined for:
ATTACHMENT TO
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION
IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES B. HICKS
CASE NO: 07-0-10766
1. At all relevant times, Respondent was lead counsel representing the
plaintiff in United States District Court ("Court") case no. 2:06-CV-02114 FCD GGH,
entitled Landis Revin Nutraceuticals v. Arthur Andrew Medical, Inc., Justin Marsh and
Tom Aldrich ("Landis lawsuit").
2. On September 21, 2006, Respondent filed the Landis lawsuit.
3. On October 26, 2006, Respondent caused to be filed a Request for Entry of
Default as to each of the defendants in the Landis lawsuit and attached three proofs of
service in support thereof. In each proof of service, Respondent declared under penalty
of perjury that he had caused the Summons and Complaint to be served on September 22,
2006, via first-class mail with requested return receipt. Respondent further declared that
he "subsequently received the return receipt, showing that [each] defendant had signed
for receipt of the envelope containing the Summons and Complaint."
4. As a result, on October 31, 2006, default was entered against the defendants.
5. On October 31, 2006, defendants’ counsel, Julie Harlan ("Harlan") telephoned
Respondent and left a voice-mail message advising him that the defendants had not been
served with the Summons and Complaint. In her message, Harlan also asked
Respondent to provide copies of the aforementioned return receipts. Respondent
received Harlan’s message.
6. That same day, on October 31, 2006, Harlan sent Respondent a letter via facsimile
and U.S. mail asking Respondent to provide copies of the signed return receipts. In her
letter, Harlan also asked Respondent to assist in setting aside the defaults if he
determined that the Request for Default had been filed in error. Respondent received
Harlan’s letter.
7. Thereafter, Respondent and members of his law office attempted to locate the
signed return receipts but could not find them.
8. On November 8, 2006, Respondent sent an email message to Harlan, claiming
that the defendants had been properly served and refusing to assist in setting aside the
defaults.
9. At that time Respondent did not provide the return receipts or inform Harlan that
he could not find them.
10. On December 7, 2006, Harlan filed a motion to set aside the defaults and for
sanctions against Respondents.
11. On December 26, 2006, Respondent’s office filed an opposition to Harlan’s
motion stating that proper service had been made and relying, in part, on Respondent’s
declarations regarding proof of service filed in support of the Request for Entry of
Default. At that time, Respondent’s office did not attach a copy of the aforementioned
return receipts or explain that the receipts were missing.
12. On January 5, 2008, Harlan filed a Reply Memorandum arguing, among other
things, that the aforementioned return receipts did not exist.
13. On January 8, 2008, the Court ordered Respondent to appear for heating
on January 12, 2007. Due to Respondent’s unavailability, the Court continued the
hearing to January 26, 2007.
14. On January 24, 2008, Respondent’s law firm filed a sur-reply stating, for the first
time, that the aforementioned signed return receipts had been "inadvertently misplaced"
by a secretary.
15. On or about January 26, 2007, Respondent appeared for heating before the Court
and stated that he had seen the return receipts before signing his declarations regarding
service. Respondent further admitted that he had realized the receipts were missing
when Harlan first contacted him about service, in late October or early November 2006.
16. Respondent explained to the Court that he did not inform Harlan of the missing
receipts because Respondent believed he could rely on his declaration regarding service
and that return receipts were not required. Respondent always maintained that the return
receipts had been returned to his office.
17. At all times, Respondent should have disclosed to Harlan and to the Court
that return receipts were missing. By failing to do so, Respondent acted with
recklessness.
18. By order dated February 1, 2007, the Court granted Harlan’s motion to set aside
the defaults and sanctioned Respondent $10,716.00. The Court found that Respondent
engaged in the reckless disregard of the duty owed to the court and that his actions
"unnecessarily and unreasonably multiplied [the] proceedings."
19. By failing to disclose the fact that the return receipts were missing and by
unnecessarily and unreasonably multiplying the Landis lawsuit, Respondent acted
recklessly and thereby committed acts involving "moral turpitude, dishonesty or
corruption," in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.