Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

David Boyer Prince - #166113

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: 166113    
Address: Law Offices of David B. Prince
PO Box 33144
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone Number: (408) 741-5174
Fax Number: (408) 741-5174
e-mail: nkket@rjwhl.eduelcldg@ceupe.comuyymsnfl@mmrhbu.orguyndfbwan@peetje.orgelluq@qncrnqe.orgmlbrhu@wykof.netpwlberq@mbuwuf.govjmnyrcu@dih.comijyp@mfjy.govqbdhp@iern.netaujhhis@iotwc.combnpqoltg@siygg.eduqjuyjdhgr@syfom.govicebm@giyajyd.govlexprince@aol.comqoqjkurkm@kyah.netbitgmric@yrylmy.netacfrjc@mdkk.govrthwo@wayrra.eduiorchgqor@lwsjtba.org 
County: Santa Clara
Undergraduate School: San Jose State Univ; San Jose CA
District: District 6    
Sections: None Law School: Regent Univ SOL; Virginia Beach VA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
7/26/2014 Disbarred  
12/11/2011 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
12/2/1993 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.

7/26/2014 Disbarment 10-C-02277 Disbarred 
12/11/2011 Interim suspension after conviction 10-C-02277 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 
11/22/2007 Discipline, probation; no actual susp. 05-O-03195  

Administrative Actions

7/1/2014 Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 

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
7/26/2014 10-C-2277 Decision [PDF]
12/11/2011 10-C-02277 Interim Suspension Order [PDF]
11/22/2007 05-O-03195 Stipulation [PDF]
11/22/2007 05-O-03195 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.

July 26, 2014

DAVID BOYER PRINCE [#166113], 52, of Los Gatos, was summarily disbarred July 26, 2014 and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In October 2011, Prince was convicted of five felony counts of wire fraud, an offense that constitutes moral turpitude and met the criteria for summary disbarment.

November 22, 2007

DAVID BOYER PRINCE [#166113], 45, of Los Gatos was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and make restitution. The order took effect Nov. 22, 2007.

Prince stipulated to five counts of misconduct in two client matters.

He filed an action, and a second and third amended complaints, in state court stemming from a custody dispute and juvenile dependency proceeding. The day after filing the third amended complaint, he filed a similar action in federal court, containing the same claims for relief against the same defendants.

When Prince declined to dismiss the federal case, as requested by counsel for the defendants, they filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions. The court imposed sanctions against Prince totaling $4,875 after finding the filing was improper and that plaintiffs were trying to “forum shop or to delay and beleaguer opposing counsel.”

He did not pay the sanctions or report them to the bar for more than a year.

Prince stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or report sanctions to the bar, and he disobeyed a court order.

In another matter, he filed a complaint on behalf of two clients who wanted to obtain a conservatorship for their father. The clients believed their father’s second wife had taken some of his assets. Prince filed a complaint, which involved an accounting of proceeds totaling about $238,000 from the sale of a house the father and the second wife lived in.

When the case was transferred from Santa Clara to Placer County, an attorney with whom Prince associated gave the defendants’ attorney an extension because he was not notified about the court’s receipt of the file. Although the statutory time frame for responding had not expired, Prince filed for default. He misrepresented to the court that the defendants had been served with the notice of receipt of the file by the court clerk.

When the default was granted, Prince attempted to engage in settlement negotiations and then filed a request for a court judgment. The court entered a judgment of $266,754 in favor of Prince’s clients.

The other side won sanctions against Prince for violating the Code of Civil Procedure.

The conservatorship was terminated and Prince was ordered to refund the clients’ fee. He did not do so, nor did he pay the $7,000 sanction order.

He stipulated that he failed to perform competent legal services or obey a court order.

In mitigation, he had no prior discipline record.

Start New Search »