Victor Wahl II, Esquire | NOMINATED

Cal­i­for­nia. Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Vic­tor Jospeh Wahl II, Esquire [#101156], age 58, of Boul­der Creek, Cal­i­for­nia has been nom­i­nated by the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia for induc­tion into the Evil Esquire Bar Asso­ci­a­tion as an asso­ciate member.

On Jan­u­ary 15, 2009 Wahl was not really sus­pended for two years. Rather, the Cal Bar­FOONS “stayed” the sus­pen­sion, placed him on two years pro­ba­tion with an actual ninety day sus­pen­sion and ordered him to inform his clients, oppos­ing coun­sel and inter­ested third par­ties of his sus­pen­sion i.e., com­ply with rule 9.20 of the Cal­i­for­nia “Rules” of “Pro­fes­sional” Conduct.

Check­ing the EEBA mail bag, we didn’t find Vic’s notice to us regard­ing his sus­pen­sion. Hope the Cal Bar doesn’t take that out on him too but they prob­a­bly will as they’re too incom­pen­tent to go after real criminals.

Speak­ing of incom­pe­tence, here’s the text of the Cal­Bar’s nom­i­na­tion as pub­lished in the Cal­i­for­nia Bar Journal:

Wahl failed to com­ply with pro­ba­tion con­di­tions attached to a 2004 dis­ci­pli­nary order. He did not con­tact the State Bar pro­ba­tion office within the required time­frame, sub­mit­ted eight quar­terly reports late and filed a defec­tive final report late.

In the under­ly­ing mat­ter, Wahl stip­u­lated that he failed to per­form legal ser­vices com­pe­tently and improp­erly sought agree­ment with a plain­tiff to drop a com­plaint. He also was pub­licly reproved in 2000 for fail­ing to return client files, com­mu­ni­cate with a client or coop­er­ate with the bar’s investigation.

We’re always humored by the Cal Bar’s use of the Eng­lish lan­guage to soften or con­ceal the truth of a mat­ter. Notice this:

Wahl stip­u­lated that he failed to per­form legal ser­vices competently

The antonym of com­pe­tent is incom­pe­tent. Why wouldn’t they require him to sim­ply stip­u­late that he per­formed legal ser­vices incompetently?

This begs the ques­tion, if Vic stip­u­lated to “fail­ing to per­form legal ser­vices com­pe­tently” then why isn’t he require to retake the multi-state pro­fes­sional respon­si­bil­ity examination?

This really sounds fishy. Per­haps the bar coun­sel found a bag of cash in his or her office and was so elated with their good for­tune, they decided to go easy on him?

Help Vic­tor become an EEBA mem­ber by assist­ing our esteemed Bored to assess his fit­ness by rat­ing his “evil­ity” and pro­vid­ing com­men­tary regard­ing the fore­go­ing and any evil activ­i­ties he’s been involved in that are not known to the public.