SAN FRANCISCO — James Edward Griswold, a Long Beach,
California-based attorney, was disbarred on Nov. 18, the California
Supreme Court recently ruled.
The ruling was the result of four counts of misconduct and a
failure to respond to the charges. A motion was filed recommending
disbarment on June 6, 2016, by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel.
According to his profile page
on the State Bar of California website, Griswold was admitted to the
California State Bar in June 2000 after obtaining his law degree from
Southwestern University School of Law-Los Angeles. He has been
categorized as inactive and not eligible to practice law in
California four prior times beginning in 2014. Griswold was suspended
twice for failure to pay his Bar Association dues.
The disciplinary action stemmed from one case occurring in late
2014. Griswold allegedly improperly withdrew from a case by failing
to inform his client of his intentions. His actions could have caused
avoidable, foreseeable prejudice to his client which is a violation
of the California Code of Business and Profession. The court ordered
Griswold to appear on Oct. 10, 2015 in regards to the matter, but he
failed to do so. The attorney also neglected to pay $1,000 in
sanctions by the date set by the court of Nov. 17, 2014.
Three letters regarding the disciplinary actions taken against
Griswold went unanswered, violating section 6068 subdivision (i) of
the California Business and Professions Code. In addition, he also
violated subsection (j) by allegedly failing to provide a current
address for his Bar Association membership. It is unclear if the bar
received an update address for Griswold.
Disbarment was recommended by the State Bar Court as the evidence
in the case met the requirements for 5.85(F). The allegations against
Griswold were proven to be factual, and the court determined that
“reasonable diligence was used to notify Respondent of the
proceedings.” As the default response was entered and accepted
properly and Griswold failed to participate in the proceedings, the
court found no reason to not proceed with the sentence.
According to the court documents,
the ruling claims that Griswold must comply with the California Rules
of Court Rule 9.20 subsections (a) and (c) in regards to his
disbarment. Under the rules, Griswold is required to give
notification to all of his clients of the recent ruling, deliver any
papers necessary to clients in regards to their cases, return any
fees that remain unearned, and alert opposing counsel in any pending
litigation of his disbarment.
Griswold must then file the clerk of the State Bar Court that he
has complied with the provisions of his disbarment.
his undergraduate degree from California Polytechnic State
University-San Luis Obispo.