SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco attorney Derek William St. Pierre faces disbarment by default following a State Bar of California recommendation after he allegedly violated rules of professional conduct in three client matters and his probation.
The state bar court also recommended St. Pierre be ordered to pay $1,000, plus interest, in restitution to one client, according to the 10-page decision and order of involuntary inactive enrollment issued March 29 by the state bar court.
St. Pierre failed to participate in person or via counsel, and the state bar's decision and order for disbarment was entered by default. If 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 bar to recommend an attorney’s disbarment.
The state bar's decision is pending final action by the California Supreme Court, an appeal before the state bar's review department or expiration of time in which parties may request further review within the state bar court.
St. Pierre's recommended discipline was among the dispositions filed earlier this month by the state bar court's hearing department for March.
St. Pierre was admitted to the bar in California on Jan. 4, 1999, according to his profile at the state bar website.
One of the counts against St. Pierre in the state bar court's recommended discipline was that he allegedly failed to comply with all of the conditions of the probation handed down against him almost two years ago. St. Pierre allegedly failed to file a final probation report and proof that he attended the state bar's ethics schools, both of which were due by May 28.
In May 2016, St. Pierre, then 43, was placed on a year of probation after he allegedly reported that he had complied with minimum continuing legal education when he had not, according to information on his state bar profile. He did comply with those requirements following a state bar audit. His lack of a prior disciplinary record, remorse, his agreement to a pretrial stipulation and family problems he was experiencing at the time all were taken into consideration.