SAN FRANCISCO – Los Angeles attorney Sheen Myong Na faces suspension and probation following a May 16 California Supreme Court order over alleged misconduct in four client matters, according to a recent report issued by the State Bar of California and court documents.
The Supreme Court handed down a stayed three-year suspension and three years of conditional probation with up to two years of actual suspension until certain conditions are met, including restitution. Conditions of Na's probation also include passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, as previously recommended by the California State Bar Court's Hearing Department, and provide proof of rehabilitation and fitness to practice.
Na also was ordered to pay $5,300, plus interest, in restitution to two clients, in addition to costs.
Na's discipline will be effective Saturday, June 15, according to an announcement recently posted on the state bar's website.
Na was admitted to the bar in California on Dec. 3, 1982, according to his profile at the state bar website.
The most recent allegations against Na was his third disciplinary proceeding in California since 2013 and this time he was charged with nine counts of misconduct in four immigration matters.
In March of last year, a California State Bar Court hearing judge recommended Na receive a stayed three-year suspension and be placed on three years' probation after finding him culpable of all charges.
Na subsequently appealed four of the culpability findings - failing to perform with competence in three client matters and not refunding fees to one client. Na also asked the state bar court to assign less aggravation and to recommend a "substantially" reduced discipline that included no more than 60 days of actual suspension, a State Bar Court opinion states.
This past February, the state bar court affirmed the hearing committee's recommendation.
"Though Na's misconduct, prior record and other aggravation are serious, disbarment is too severe because he has never been suspended or placed on probation in his prior cases," the state bar court's February opinion said. "We find that the hearing judge's discipline recommendation is appropriate."