Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

 

Donald Martin Wanland Jr - #122462

Current Status:  Not eligible to practice law (Not Entitled)

See below for more details.

Profile Information

The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.

Bar Number: 122462    
Address: Wanland, Burgess & Brenner
705 University Ave
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone Number: (916) 921-5597
Fax Number: (916) 921-1828
e-mail: Not Available 
County: Sacramento
Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA
District: District 3    
Sections: None Law School: Santa Clara Univ SOL; Santa Clara CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Not Eligible To Practice Law
2/19/2014 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
7/10/2012 Active  
7/3/2012 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
2/18/1986 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.

2/19/2014 Interim suspension after conviction 09-C-10146 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
4/15/2011 Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 08-O-13238  
4/5/2002 Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 00-O-11320  

Administrative Actions

7/3/2012 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law 


Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

Explanation of common actions

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/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
2/19/2014 09-C-10146 Interim Suspension Order [PDF]
5/4/2012 08-O-13238 Order re Extension of Time [PDF]
4/15/2011 08-O-13238 Opinion [PDF] [WORD]
Pending 09-C-10146 Initiating Document [PDF]

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.

April 15, 2011

DONALD MARTIN WANLAND JR. [#122462], 53, of Sacramento was suspended for 90 days, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect April 15, 2011.

A State Bar Court hearing judge found that Wanland violated the terms of a 2002 probation, and although the bar delayed filing disciplinary charges, he still deserves a stayed suspension. Wanland argued he did not violate probation and said an actual suspension was too harsh.

In 2002, Wanland received a 30-day stayed suspension and a five-year probation for violating a bankruptcy court order to return a former client’s file. The bankruptcy court ordered him to pay attorneys’ fees and a fine for each day that he failed to produce the file, resulting in a total of $12,603 (the coercive sanction). Later, the court fined him $13,699.12 for contempt (the contempt sanction) when he failed to pay the initial fine.

Although he met his probation obligations, he often was late. He made restitution payments late, filed his ethics school certification late and filed 12 probation reports after the deadline. Nonetheless, there were no consequences until a new probation officer was assigned to his case. After she reviewed the file without a satisfactory response from Wanland, the bar charged him with probation violations.

In mitigation, the bar delayed in charging Wanland and he did complete his probation.


Start New Search »