Gordon Wright, Xsquire | NOMINATED

Cal­i­for­nia. Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Gor­don Ran­dolph Wright, Xsquire [#101182], age 64, of El Cajon, Cal­i­for­nia has been nom­i­nated by the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia for induc­tion into the Evil Esquire Bar Asso­ci­a­tion as an inter­minable member.

Wright was dis­barred August 30, 2008, by the Cal Bar and ordered to com­ply with Rule 9.20 of the Cal­i­for­nia Rules of Court i.e., inform his clients, oppos­ing coun­sel and inter­ested third par­ties of the change in his title from Esquire to Xsquire– or some­thing like that.

Here’s the text of the Cal Bar’s nom­i­na­tion as pub­lished in the Cal­i­for­nia Bar Journal.

In a default pro­ceed­ing, the State Bar Court found that Wright vio­lated rule 955 of the Cal­i­for­nia Rules of Court, since renum­bered as rule 9.20, by not sub­mit­ting an affi­davit stat­ing that he noti­fied his clients, oppos­ing coun­sel and other per­ti­nent par­ties of his sus­pen­sion. Fail­ure to com­ply with rule 955 is grounds for disbarment.

So what hap­pens when he fails to notify pur­suant to Rule 9.20 this time around? Per­haps Gor­don is retired and amused by the Bar’s machi­na­tions? Or maybe he’s dead? Hunter Thompson’s “attor­ney” has been dead since 1974 and the Cal Bar reflects his sta­tus as “Not eli­gi­ble to prac­tice law– Sus­pended, failed to pay Bar mem­ber fees.” They must be des­per­ate for dues. Check’s in the mail!

The under­ly­ing dis­ci­pline was a 2006 pro­ba­tion revo­ca­tion, imposed when Wright did not com­ply with mul­ti­ple pro­ba­tion­ary require­ments attached to a 2005 dis­ci­pli­nary order. He had failed to per­form legal ser­vices with com­pe­tence, respond to his client’s rea­son­able sta­tus inquiries, take rea­son­able steps upon ter­mi­na­tion of employ­ment to avoid prej­u­dice to his client, promptly return his client’s papers, or coop­er­ate with the bar’s investigation.

In rec­om­mend­ing Wright’s dis­bar­ment, Judge Richard A. Honn wrote that Wright “has demon­strated an unwill­ing­ness to com­ply with the pro­fes­sional oblig­a­tions and rules of court imposed on Cal­i­for­nia attor­neys although he has been given oppor­tu­ni­ties to do so.”

Huh? Don’t all attor­neys who are dis­ci­plined by the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia demon­strate “an unwill­ing­ness to com­ply with the pro­fes­sional oblig­a­tions and rules of court imposed on Cal­i­for­nia attor­neys”? HE PREJUDICED HIS CLIENT’S INTERESTS. THAT UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC’S FAITH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM as does ONLY DISCIPLINING 3.5% (five year aver­age) of the ATTORNEYS COMPLAINED ABOUT TO THE CALIFORNIA BAR.

Why are we so agi­tated? You’d think the Cal Bar would adhere to the prin­ci­ples of “pro­fes­sional cour­tesy” after all, we’re a bar asso­ci­a­tion too. If they don’t pros­e­cute their licensed crim­i­nals we can’t induct them into the EEBA.

Help Gor­don 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.

****** ****** ******

Know a lawyer who’s wor­thy of induc­tion to the EEBA? Send a brief sum­mary of the lawyer’s “qual­i­fi­ca­tions” along with his or her full name, state(s) of licen­sure and other iden­ti­fy­ing infor­ma­tion to vic­tims @ evilesq.com and, depend­ing on their con­duct, we’ll add them to our Nom­i­nee roles or Watch­list.