Kris Patrick Thompson - #154866
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Thompson Law Group
444 W "C" St Ste 240
San Diego, CA 92101
|Phone Number:||(619) 233-9100|
|Fax Number:||(619) 233-9400|
||Undergraduate School:||Kansas State Univ; Manhattan KS|
|CLA Sections:||None||Law School:||Univ of Kansas SOL; Lawrence KS|
|California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
|Effective Date||Description||Case Number||Resulting Status|
|7/1/2011||Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|11/30/2010||Suspended/Child & Fam Supp noncompliance||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|10/10/2008||Suspended/Child & Fam Supp noncompliance||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
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|
|4/25/2013||10-H-6418||Decision [PDF] [WORD]|
|3/18/2012||10-H-06418||Order re Inactive Enrollment [PDF]|
|2/7/2012||08-H-10952||MPRE Suspension Order [PDF]|
|10/1/2011||10-H-06418||Order re Entry of Default [PDF]|
|12/9/2010||08-H-10952||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.
April 25, 2013
KRIS PATRICK THOMPSON [#154866], 55, of San Diego was disbarred April 25, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.Thompson’s default was entered in 2012 after he failed to appear at trial. Because he made no effort to vacate the default within 90 days, as required by rule 5.85 of the bar’s rules of procedure, he was disbarred and the charges against him were deemed admitted.Thompson was charged with violating two conditions of the disciplinary probation imposed on him in 2007, failing to comply with rule 9.20 and violating two of the conditions of the disciplinary probation imposed on him in 2010.In 2007, he received a public reproval following a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol with a prior conviction for the same offense. His 2010 disciplinary probation was for not abiding by the terms of the earlier public reproval.
December 9, 2010
KRIS PATRICK THOMPSON [#154866], 53, of San Diego was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with an actual 90-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Dec. 9, 2010.Thompson appealed a State Bar Court hearing judge’s recommendation that he be suspended for six months after he failed to comply with conditions attached to a 2007 public reproval. He had been convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence in 2005. The bar court review department agreed that Thompson should receive a stayed suspension and probation but reduced the actual suspension to 90 days.Despite the requirements of the reproval order, Thompson did not undergo a substance abuse or mental health evaluation, contact the bar’s probation office or submit quarterly reports. Although the review department said it did not condone Thompson’s “continual failure to comply with his reproval conditions because his trial schedule did not afford him the time to attend to them,” it also found that the DUI did not involve the practice of law or relate to any clients. Thompson accepted full responsibility for not complying with the reproval and has no other discipline record.