Attorney Licensee Profile
Joseph Mariott Hartley #97610
This licensee is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
License Status: Disbarred
Address: Hartley & Hartley, 2118 Wilshire Blvd #352, Santa Monica, CA 90403
County: Los Angeles County
Phone Number: (310) 450-5316
Fax Number: (310) 450-1967
Email: Not Available
Law School: Univ of Wisconsin Law School; Madison WI
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.
June 18, 2004
JOSEPH MARIOTT HARTLEY [#97610], 51, of Santa Monica probation was revoked, the stay of suspension was lifted and he was actually suspended for one year and was ordered to comply with rule 955. Credit shall be given for a period of involuntary inactive enrollment that began Feb. 7, 2004. The order took effect June 18, 2004.Hartley was disciplined in 2002 for failing to comply with a court order or keep the client informed of significant developments in the case, seeking to mislead a judge and committing an act of moral turpitude. He did not comply with probation conditions: he failed to submit two quarterly probation reports, review the probation with his monitor, or submit proof of attendance at ethics school, completion of 10 hours of approved MCLE classes or evidence of monthly medical treatment.
May 12, 2002
JOSEPH MARRIOTT HARTLEY [#97610], 49, of Santa Monica was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May12, 2002.Hartley substituted in to a breach of contract action. The contract had been the subject of a previous action which had settled, but the matter had not been clarified with the county recorder.Opposing counsel suggested to Hartley that the litigation be resolved by a stipulation, extinguishing the previously recorded document which formed the basis of the suit. He also indicated legal action might be taken if the matter were not dismissed.Without consulting his clients, Hartley moved to dismiss the case.Opposing counsel said a dismissal was not acceptable because of the cloud over the title, and again asked for a stipulation. Hartley told the other attorney to prepare the stipulation and he would explain it to his client.The following day, the court clerk inquired about the status of the matter and Hartley told her a settlement had been reached and authorized the clerk to take the matter off calendar. When he received the proposed stipulation from the other lawyer by fax, he retyped it, incorporated a photocopy of his client's signature and delivered the signature page to the other attorney. When told the signature needed to be original, Hartley said he would provide an original signature later. Hartley never consulted with his client about any of his actions and stipulated that he committed an act of moral turpitude.Hartley and the opposing counsel later appeared in court, after Hartley's client had failed to appear at a previous hearing because he didn't know about it. When he did appear, Hartley did not disclose the circumstances surrounding the stipulation. At a later hearing, he indicated the client was prepared to re-sign the stipulation. In fact, the client didn't know about the stipulation and was not prepared to re-sign it. Hartley stipulated that he sought to mislead the court twice and he failed to keep his client apprised of developments in his case. He also failed to obey a court order by not appearing at a hearing.In mitigation, Hartley has no record of discipline since his 1981 admission to the bar, he had serious financial problems, his father was terminally ill and died, and he ultimately suffered from depression and anxiety. He paid a substantial amount of compensation to the client.
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.