EvilEsq Admits Charla Duke, Esquirette

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Pro­posed by the buf­foons oper­at­ing one of the world’s largest cor­rupt orga­ni­za­tions, the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia, Charla Duke, Esquirette, a 57 year old Oak­land per­sonal injury lawyer, has been admit­ted to the Evil Esq Bar Asso­ci­a­tion as an asso­ciate member.

Ms. Duke attended the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia Berke­ley and there­after the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia Hast­ings Col­lege of Law in San Fran­cisco. She was admit­ted to the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia in Decem­ber 1980, bar num­ber 95518.

Duke was sus­pended on Sep­tem­ber 12, 2008 for three years which sus­pen­sion, in their infi­nite wis­dom, the Cal­i­for­nia Bar clowns, “stayed” and placed Ms. Duke on three years pro­ba­tion with an actual two-year sus­pen­sion– “and until she proves her reha­bil­i­ta­tion.”  They also ordered her to take the Multi-state Pro­fes­sional Respon­si­bil­ity Exam­i­na­tion (MPRE) and notify her clients, oppos­ing coun­sel and other inter­ested par­ties of her suspension.

Accord­ing to the Bar, “[A]fter stip­u­lat­ing to trust account­ing vio­la­tions, Duke was accepted in 2006 as a par­tic­i­pant in the State Bar’s Alter­na­tive Dis­ci­pline Pro­gram for lawyers with men­tal health or sub­stance abuse prob­lems. How­ever, she was ter­mi­nated from the pro­gram for fail­ing to com­ply with its require­ments. The bar alleged she did not coop­er­ate with its inves­ti­ga­tion of two pend­ing com­plaints against her and she did not appear at a hear­ing on the matter.”

This really ran­kles us. The woman is crazy or a sub­stance abuser or both and the State Bar of Cal­i­for­nia deems it pru­dent to invest in attempt­ing to reha­bil­i­tate her rather than use those funds to pur­sue inves­ti­gat­ing the thou­sands of sub­stan­tive com­plaints they receive from the pub­lic regard­ing mis­be­hav­ing attorneys.

Obvi­ously, they are con­cerned about the grow­ing mem­ber roles of our bar and want to give up as few mem­bers as possible.

The mis­con­duct under­ly­ing the Cal­i­for­nia Bar’s cur­rent dis­ci­pli­nary action included:

Duke’s admis­sion “to three vio­la­tions of pro­fes­sional mis­con­duct involv­ing her client trust account, includ­ing fail­ing to pre­serve the iden­tity of client funds, com­min­gling per­sonal and client funds and issu­ing insuf­fi­ciently funded checks.

Over sev­eral months in 2003, Duke deposited set­tle­ment funds for eight clients in her trust account, but instead of keep­ing the funds there for the indi­vid­ual clients, she used the funds of some clients to pay dis­bur­sals to or on behalf of other clients. She also deposited 10 checks from non-clients into the account, wrote more than 250 checks for non-client related pur­poses and wrote 15 checks against insuf­fi­cient funds.”

So she was run­ning a ponzi scheme for which Cal­i­for­nia lawyer ponzi schemers are exempt from prosecution?

The fore­go­ing inci­dents weren’t Duke’s first brushes with the Bar, she was also sus­pended in 1998 sus­pen­sion for fail­ing to file income tax returns.

Any­one inter­ested in obtain­ing advice from Ms. Duke regard­ing deal­ing with the Cal­i­for­nia Bar clowns should con­tact her at her Law Office at 360 Grand Avenue, #150, Oak­land, Cal­i­for­nia. Or email her at: dukemOut@aol.com

Have there been other com­plaints regard­ing Ms. Duke  the Cal­i­for­nia Bar clowns have failed to inves­ti­gate?  Are Ms. Duke’s vic­tims clients sat­is­fied with the dis­ci­pline imposed in this case?  Was resti­tu­tion ordered?  Has it been made?