Gregory Fulton Stannard - #108674
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
8507 Wiley Post Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90045
|Phone Number:||(310) 962-1223|
|Fax Number:||Not Available|
||Undergraduate School:||Claremont McKenna Coll; Claremont CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||Southwestern Univ SOL; Los Angeles CA|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
Disciplinary and Related Actions
|Effective Date||Description||Case Number||Resulting Status|
|4/15/2012||Ordered inactive||10-O-01324||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|This member has no public record of administrative actions.|
Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
State Bar Court Cases
NOTE: 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. Only opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter 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, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
|Effective Date||Case Number||Description|
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
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 attorney discipline records are available upon request.
July 18, 2013
GREGORY FULTON STANNARD [#108674], 56, of Los Angeles, was disbarred July 18, 2013 and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.Stannard’s disbarment stems from two separately filed cases in which he misappropriated more than $68,000 from three clients between 2008 and 2011. The State Bar sought review of the hearing judge’s suspension recommendation in one of the cases, while Stannard sought review of another judge’s disbarment recommendation in the other matter.Considering the two cases together, a three-judge panel found that Stannard’s misconduct warranted disbarment, noting that he failed to prove that “the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominated in this case.” Among other things, the panel found him culpable of failing to pay client funds promptly, failing to maintain client funds in trust, committing moral turpitude by misappropriating settlement funds, failing to perform competently and failing to respond to client inquiries.In one matter that led to his discipline, Stannard delayed paying a client most of the money she was due from a $140,000 personal injury settlement, despite the fact that she desperately needed the money. Stannard eventually paid her. He was supposed to keep some funds to pay her medical liens but delayed doing so for nearly three years. During that period he was required to hold $16,962 on his client’s behalf, but instead allowed the balance in his client trust account to dip down to a negative amount. As a result, the client’s medical providers reported her to credit agencies, and one credit agency garnished $2,700 from her wages.In another matter, Stannard misappropriated $41,700 from a client’s personal injury claim and used it for his personal expenses.In appealing the hearing judge’s order, Stannard argued the disbarment was extreme because his “psychological disorder caused aberrational misconduct.” Among other problems, Stannard was experiencing marital problems, financial problems and trouble coping with the death of several family members during the time of his misconduct. The review panel found Stannard’s emotional problems to be a significant factor in mitigation. However, it concluded that his misconduct was too significant.“Although we do not discount Stannard’s emotional difficulties or his other factors in mitigation, these factors are not sufficiently compelling and do not predominate when weighed against his serious misconduct and the aggravating factors,” the panel wrote. “During the course of legal practice, many attorneys may experience financial and emotional difficulties comparable to Stannard’s.”