Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

Frank Patrick Sprouls - #166019

Current Status:  Active

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Profile Information

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

Bar Number: 166019    
Address: Ricci Sprouls PC
445 Washington St
San Francisco, CA 94111
Map it
Phone Number: (415) 391-2100
Fax Number: (415) 391-4678
e-mail: Not Available 
County: San Francisco
Undergraduate School: San Francisco State Unv; San Francisco CA
District: District 1    
Sections: None Law School: Golden Gate Univ SOL; San Francisco CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
8/1/2011 Active  
4/29/2011 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
11/24/1993 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.

11/15/2016 Notice of Disc Charges Filed in SBCt 15-O-12314  
4/29/2011 Discipline w/actual suspension 06-J-15200 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 

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
5/11/2012 06-J-15200 Order re Extension of Time [PDF]
Pending 15-O-12314 Initiating Document [PDF]
Pending 15-O-12314 Response [PDF]
Pending 06-J-15200 Opinion [PDF] [WORD]
Pending 06-J-15200 Modification Order [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 29, 2011

FRANK PATRICK SPROULS [#166019], 55, of San Francisco was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and he 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 April 29, 2011.

The State Bar sought review of a hearing judge’s recommendation that Sprouls be given only a stayed suspension as the result of misconduct in two matters. The State Bar Court review department increased the recommended discipline after finding he committed extensive misconduct in immigration cases.

The hearing judge found, and the review department agreed, that Sprouls committed 51 acts of misconduct before the Ninth Circuit, which disciplined him for professional misconduct. The review panel did not agree with the bar’s argument that Sprouls committed acts of moral turpitude as the result of gross negligence. His misconduct was divided into four general categories: petitions for review that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or summarily denied; petitions for review that were dismissed for failure to prosecute; opening briefs that were filed late; and performance that was lacking for other reasons.

In the second matter, in which a client hired Sprouls to rescind a removal order, both the hearing judge and the review panel found that he Sprouls failed to perform legal services competently by filing a motion that didn’t comply with immigration court requirements. He also delegated preparation of legal documents to non-lawyers in his office and failed to supervise them adequately.

In mitigation, Sprouls had no discipline record in 10 years of practice, acknowledged his wrongdoing, submitted evidence of his good character and did extensive pro bono work

Start New Search »