Stephen Paul Naratil - #174825
Current Status: Not eligible to practice law (Not Entitled)
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
77 Solano Sq #107
Benicia, CA 94510
|Phone Number:||Not Available|
|Fax Number:||Not Available|
||Undergraduate School:||Long Island Univ; Southampton NY|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||Thomas Jefferson SOL; San Diego CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|Present||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|12/17/2011||Not Eligible To Practice Law|
|12/9/1994||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
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|
|5/23/2012||11-PM-17824||Decision [PDF] [WORD]|
|3/12/2012||06-O-14047||MPRE Suspension 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.
May 23, 2012
The probation of STEPHEN PAUL NARATIL [#174825], 45, of Benicia was revoked, he was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on probation for two years with an actual one-year suspension and until he makes restitution and he was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. If the suspension exceeds two years, he must prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect May 23, 2012.Naratil did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2011 disciplinary order. He filed two quarterly reports late and did not make the required restitution.In the underlying matter, he shared legal fees with a non-attorney and did not refund unearned fees to three clients.
February 10, 2011
STEPHEN PAUL NARATIL [#174825], 44, of Benicia was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Feb. 10, 2011.Naratil stipulated to four counts of misconduct in four matters.He entered into a written agreement with a non-lawyer whose company was to receive 83 percent of Naratil’s legal fees in exchange for services such as marketing and managing his criminal defense practice. Although he informed the bar the arrangement did not interfere with any of his legal representations, he stipulated that he improperly split fees with a non-laywer.In two cases, he agreed to represent clients in criminal matters in Texas, where he was not admitted. In each matter, he contacted a Texas lawyer asking for help with the case and agreeing to pay the local lawyers a fee. Naratil simply served as an intermediary between the clients and the Texas firms without providing any legal services. In one matter he stipulated that he failed to refund an unearned fee of $26,000 and in the other, the unearned fee amounted to $6,500. Naratil was not aware the clients had not received refunds, and he eventually reimbursed them for the full amount.Another client and his mother paid Naratil $30,000 to represent him in the event charges were filed in a military court-martial proceeding. Charges were filed after Naratil ended his relationship with the non-lawyer’s company and the client was represented by an attorney provided by the Judge Advocate General’s office. Naratil did not refund any part of the unearned fee, although he has agreed to do so.In mitigation, he has no discipline record since his 1994 admission to the bar, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation, made substantial restitution payments and submitted evidence of his good character.