San Francisco attorney Bryan L. Robinson has been disbarred by the California State Bar over 11 counts of allegations against him, including commingling more than $50,000 between his personal and client trust funds, according to a recent decision.
The state bar handed down its June 5 decision concerning allegations against Robinson that included paying personal expenses from his client trust account, according to information detailed in the decision and order of involuntary inactive enrollment.
Robinson issued 153 electronic/ACH payments from funds in his client trust account to pay personal expenses, according to the decision. He also made separate deposits of his own funds into the trust account, including $25,818.92 in his checks, $4,568.47 in electronic deposits and $17,290.29 in cash deposits into his client trust. Another count accused Robinson of failing to deposit $1,850 of client funds into the trust account.
Other counts against Robinson included trying to mislead a judge, filing meritless and frivolous appeals in U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and failing to respond to a state bar disciplinary investigation.
Robinson largely failed to participate in person or via counsel and state bar's decision and order for disbarment was entered by default. In cases such as this, when an attorney fails to participate in a California State Bar disciplinary proceeding despite adequate notice and opportunity, the bar invokes Rule 5.85, which provides the procedure for the state bar to recommend an attorney’s disbarment.
The bar's decision is pending final action by the California Supreme Court, an appeal before the bar's Review Department or expiration of time in which parties to may request further review within the State Bar Court.
Robinson was admitted to the bar in California June 5, 1997, according to his profile on the state bar's website.
In October, the state bar's hearing department handed down a decision against Robinson by default after he was charged with 13 counts of misconduct stemming from two client matters. Robinson failed to appear at the subsequent trial and the default was entered against him. However, the decision added Robinson's case was not typical because he had made "multiple, yet sporadic, efforts to participate in the proceedings".