Steven Charles Bronson - #162852
Current Status: Disbarred
This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
16530 Ventura Blvd #209
Encino, CA 91436-4553
|Phone Number:||(818) 990-7474|
|Fax Number:||(818) 783-2617|
||Undergraduate School:||Univ of California at Los Angeles; CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||Tulane Univ Law School; New Orleans LA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|9/1/2001||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|12/14/1992||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
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 20, 2003
STEVEN CHARLES BRONSON [#162852], 38, of Encino was disbarred Aug. 20, 2003, and was ordered to comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bronson did not comply with rule 955, as required by a 2002 disciplinary order. Failure to do so is grounds for disbarment. The discipline was imposed for Bronson's failure to respond to clients' status inquiries or cooperate with the bar's investigation and for committing an act of moral turpitude with regard to one client.
July 19, 2002
STEVEN CHARLES BRONSON [#162852], 37, of Encino was suspended for two years, stayed, actually suspended for 90 days and until he makes restitution and the State Bar Court grants a motion to terminate the actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. If the actual suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect July 19, 2002.In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Bronson failed to perform legal services competently, inform his client of significant developments in a case or cooperate with the bar's investigation, and he committed an act of moral turpitude based on misrepresentation.Bronson represented a client who paid a $1,800 advance fee to handle an appeal from an adverse summary judgment. Although he filed a notice of appeal, he never filed an opening brief and the appeal was dismissed.When the client inquired about the status of the case, Bronson told her he planned to file the opening brief soon, even though he knew the appeal had been dismissed.He also did not cooperate with the bar's investigation.