Default Is In Our Stars
The April 2016 online edition of the California Bar Journal reports a number of disbarments – many in part because the attorney failed to participate in proceedings and was deemed in default.
One summary
LAURA FURUTA [#210198], 42, of Thousand Oaks, was disbarred Feb. 21, 2015 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Furuta was disbarred after her default was entered for failing to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges. Because she did not seek to have the default set aside or vacated within 180 days as required under rule 5.85 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure, she was disbarred and the charges against her deemed admitted.
Furuta engaged in 56 counts of misconduct in 11 matters, including false and misleading advertising, moral turpitude, employing means inconsistent with the truth, aiding in the unauthorized practice of law, improperly withdrawing from employment and failing to render accounts of client funds, perform legal services with competence, refund unearned fees or release a client file.
In one matter she was disciplined for, Furuta engaged in improper communication/solicitation by using a website, radio advertisements and law firm stationary with the name “S.C. Harris Law,” although she had purchased the firm from Samantha Harris and Furuta’s name was not mentioned in any of the advertisements. She also filed, or caused to be filed, a complaint, demurrer and answer to complaint using a signature stamp for Harris when she knew Harris was no longer involved in the cases. In addition, she falsely represented in a phone conversation with a client that she was only assisting Harris when she knew Harris was no longer representing the client and sent a letter to her clients using Harris’ signature stamp when she knew Harris no longer represented them. She also failed to render an accounting to her clients in response to their request for a refund of advanced fees.
In one of the other matters, she failed to perform with competence by not properly supervising her non-attorney employees, advising her client that she would not be filing a lawsuit or application to stay the foreclosure date until the day before the foreclosure sale, filing a lawsuit on behalf of her client between the date of her employment by the client and the date of the scheduled foreclosure on the client’s home or filing an ex parte application to stay the foreclosure sale date. She also delegated intake duties to non-lawyers, failed to promptly refund a $4,800 unearned advanced fee and did not render a proper accounting to her client.
Furuta was ordered to pay $44,598 plus interest in restitution.
(Mike Frisch)