Attorney Licensee Profile
Quentin Burnell Simms #153454
This licensee is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
License Status: Disbarred
Address: PO Box 40106, Pasadena, CA 91114
County: Los Angeles County
Phone Number: (626) 590-5896
Fax Number: (818) 502-0843
Law School: U of San Francisco SOL; San Francisco CA
State Bar Court Cases
The listing below is partial, as the State Bar Court is transitioning to online dockets. Please refer to the License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History section above for a record of discipline cases. Case dockets and documents may be available using the State Bar Court Search for a Case feature.
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request.
October 18, 2003
QUENTIN BURNELL SIMMS [#153454], 46, of Pasadena was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 18, 2003.Simms stipulated to three counts of misconduct stemming from his handling of a client's criminal case. The client was indicted on federal charges in Missouri and also faced unrelated state charges.Simms was hired to handle both cases, but agreed to focus primarily on the state case. However, he advised the federal prosecutor that he represented the client in that matter as well.Simms knew the client would be moved to Missouri following disposition of the state case, but his goal was to have the client enter a plea and have sentencing transferred to California so any sentences could be served concurrently.Once the state case concluded, events were set in motion to move the client to Missouri. Simms signed a retainer agreement providing that he would receive $10,000 for representation prior to trial and more if the case went to trial, plus travel expenses. A family member paid the $10,000 fee.Once Simms learned that the federal case would not be transferred to California, he largely stopped working on it, although he advised the client to plead not guilty. The client believed Simms still represented him, but Simms said he never received the travel money.Simms never appeared in federal court and the court appointed new counsel for the client. Simms provided some background information to the new lawyer, but never told him he'd been retained to handle the case. He never advised his client or the federal prosecutor that he was no longer working on the case.The family's efforts to get a refund of the fee or an accounting for the money were unsuccessful.Simms stipulated that he failed to take steps to protect his client's interests upon termination of employment, refund an unearned fee or render accounts of client funds.Simms also was disciplined in 1995 for at least 14 acts of misconduct, including failure to perform legal services competently, return client files or refund unearned fees.In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar's investigation.
The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. On May 31, 2019, the State Bar Court launched online case dockets. If a case was open or filed on or after Feb 7, 2019, documents are being added online as events occur, and can be accessed with the new Search for a Case feature. Older case records are available on request.
NOTE: Only Published Opinions may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket (Search for a Case).
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The licensee is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.