Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

 

Julie Lynn Wolff - #142531

Current Status:  Disbarred

This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

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

Bar Number: 142531    
Address: Law Ofc Julie Lynn Wolff
777 Campus Commons Rd #200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone Number: (916) 451-6443
Fax Number: Not Available
e-mail: Not Available 
County: Sacramento
Undergraduate School: See Registration Card;
District: District 3    
Sections: None Law School: McGeorge SOL Univ of the Pacific; CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
8/14/2008 Disbarred  
6/14/2007 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
12/11/1989 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.

8/14/2008 Disbarment 07-N-13245 Disbarred 
3/9/2008 Ordered inactive 07-N-13245 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
11/30/2007 Ordered inactive 07-N-13245 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
9/9/2007 Discipline w/actual suspension 04-O-15655 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
6/14/2007 Discipline w/actual suspension 00-O-13294 Not Eligible To Practice Law 

Administrative Actions

This member has no public record of administrative actions.


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
8/14/2008 07-N-13245 Decision [PDF] [WORD]
9/9/2007 04-O-15655 Decision [PDF] [WORD]
9/9/2007 04-O-15655 Order [PDF]
6/14/2007 00-O-13294 Opinion [PDF] [WORD]

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.

August 14, 2008

JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 53, of Sacramento was disbarred Aug. 14, 2008, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Wolff did not comply with an earlier order rule 9.20 requirement: she did not submit to the court an affidavit attesting that she notified her clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of her suspension from practice. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.

Wolff was suspended in June 2007 for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters as a result of her belief that she did not have to follow the orders and rules of the Sacramento Superior Court.

She subsequently was suspended later the same year for failing to promptly return her client’s file and failing to respond to her client’s reasonable status inquiries.

In recommending Wolff’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, she “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although she has been given opportunities to do so.”

September 9, 2007

JULIE L. WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for 18 months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect Sept. 9, 2007.

The State Bar Court found that in a marital dissolution, Wolff failed to communicate with a client or return the client’s file when requested. She represented the husband who, with his wife, had started the dissolution by working with a mediation counselor. She met only once with her client.

In three letters, the wife’s attorney asked Wolff to respond to edits made to the marital settlement agreement that had been drafted by the mediation counselor, but she never responded. She also did not respond to her client’s phone calls or to a letter in which he expressed his frustration at her lack of communication. He hired a new lawyer, who asked Wolff to provide the file and to refund the client’s $4,000 advance fee. Wolff refunded the money.

In mitigation, Wolff presented testimony about her pro bono and community service.

She was disciplined in 2006 for failing to inform clients about significant developments in their cases, perform legal services competently or obey a court order and she withdrew from employment without court permission and without protecting her clients’ interests.

June 14, 2007

JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect June 14, 2007.

The State Bar Court’s review department, on appeal by both Wolff and bar prosecutors, increased a hearing judge’s recommendation that Wolff be publicly reproved for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters.

“This case presents an instance where, during a one-month period, an attorney lost her ethical footing,” wrote review Judge Judith Epstein.

Wolff’s problems occurred in 1999, when the presiding judge of the Sacramento juvenile court reorganized the Indigent Defense Program (IDP), through which Wolff represented parents and sometimes children in dependency matters. When a contract to handle all IDP matters was awarded to another law firm, Wolff was the attorney of record for more than 300 clients.

She submitted a document to the court entitled, “In re: All My Cases,” which she said was intended to serve as her resignation for 319 pending dependency matters. She did not notify her clients that she was withdrawing and would not appear at their upcoming hearings.

The judge ordered the document returned to Wolff because he said it was not a proper motion to withdraw, did not request a hearing date and did not indicate that any client had been served. The document also did not identify the cases by name or case number so the judge had no way to determine which matters were affected by her actions.

Nonetheless, Wolff stopped making appearances for all IDP cases for which she was attorney of record and returned her files to the program administrator, believing the cases would be reassigned.

The judge disagreed, saying only the court had the authority to relieve an attorney of record.

When she failed to make 39 appearances, Wolff’s “absence did not go unnoticed by the court,” Epstein wrote, “as her failure to make scheduled appearances disrupted court proceedings, caused continuances and resulted in some indigents appearing in court unrepresented.”

Wolff was sanctioned $1,500.

The bar court found that Wolff failed to obey a court order, withdrew from employment without the court’s permission and without taking steps to protect her clients’ interests and she failed to inform her clients of significant developments in their cases.

June 14, 2007

JULIE LYNN WOLFF [#142531], 52, of Sacramento was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an 18-month actual suspension and was ordered to prove her rehabilitation, take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20. The order took effect June 14, 2007.

The State Bar Court’s review department, on appeal by both Wolff and bar prosecutors, increased a hearing judge’s recommendation that Wolff be publicly reproved for abandoning more than 300 indigent dependency clients and failing to appear in 39 matters.

“This case presents an instance where, during a one-month period, an attorney lost her ethical footing,” wrote review Judge Judith Epstein.

Wolff’s problems occurred in 1999, when the presiding judge of the Sacramento juvenile court reorganized the Indigent Defense Program (IDP), through which Wolff represented parents and sometimes children in dependency matters. When a contract to handle all IDP matters was awarded to another law firm, Wolff was the attorney of record for more than 300 clients.

She submitted a document to the court entitled, “In re: All My Cases,” which she said was intended to serve as her resignation for 319 pending dependency matters. She did not notify her clients that she was withdrawing and would not appear at their upcoming hearings.

The judge ordered the document returned to Wolff because he said it was not a proper motion to withdraw, did not request a hearing date and did not indicate that any client had been served. The document also did not identify the cases by name or case number so the judge had no way to determine which matters were affected by her actions.

Nonetheless, Wolff stopped making appearances for all IDP cases for which she was attorney of record and returned her files to the program administrator, believing the cases would be reassigned.

The judge disagreed, saying only the court had the authority to relieve an attorney of record.

When she failed to make 39 appearances, Wolff’s “absence did not go unnoticed by the court,” Epstein wrote, “as her failure to make scheduled appearances disrupted court proceedings, caused continuances and resulted in some indigents appearing in court unrepresented.”

Wolff was sanctioned $1,500.

The bar court found that Wolff failed to obey a court order, withdrew from employment without the court’s permission and without taking steps to protect her clients’ interests and she failed to inform her clients of significant developments in their cases.


Start New Search »