Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

Anthony Emmanuel Pagkas - #186112

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: 186112    
Address: Pagkas & D'Anjou, L.L.P.
777 N 1st St Ste 250
San Jose, CA 95112
Map it
Phone Number: (408) 291-5401
Fax Number: (408) 291-5302
e-mail: dyndp@ykpb.govfupsjcg@cbjinh.edugqrwka@oykp.govcdkani@isp.edujkyqgrl@ftkimwi.comwjffso@fmgugpt.commeelclqw@ffwapn.govspaky@mcfucrfd.govmycawlw@kjl.comwohryo@ancobd.orgjfwfcr@yeaqobf.netbilmsit@tlj.orgglqkg@jtu.edupagkas@yahoo.comdrlp@gepof.comitwcjthkj@ypmr.govoltmkgw@ernff.govqhijoc@nnir.orgrgbhgaem@dirqo.edunneos@bkgyy.gov 
County: Santa Clara
Undergraduate School: Univ of San Francisco; San Francisco CA
District: District 6    
Sections: None Law School: UC Davis SOL King Hall; Davis CA

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
5/19/2016 Active  
2/19/2016 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
9/21/2012 Active  
9/14/2012 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
6/13/2011 Active  
5/14/2011 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA  
12/11/1996 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.

10/17/2016 Notice of Disc Charges Filed in SBCt 16-N-13168  
2/19/2016 Discipline w/actual suspension 14-O-01397 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 
9/14/2012 Suspended, failed to pass Prof.Resp.Exam 07-O-13322 Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA 
5/14/2011 Discipline w/actual suspension 07-O-13322 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
2/19/2016 14-O-1397 Stipulation [PDF]
9/21/2012 07-O-13322 Order Terminating Suspension [PDF]
9/14/2012 07-O-13322 MPRE Suspension Order [PDF]
8/13/2012 07-O-13322 MPRE Suspension Order [PDF]
8/9/2012 07-O-13322 Order Temp Stay [PDF]
5/14/2011 07-O-13322 Stipulation [PDF] [HTML]
Pending 16-N-13168 Initiating Document [PDF]
Pending 16-N-13168 Response [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.

February 19, 2016

ANTHONY EMMANUEL PAGKAS [#186112], 49, of San Jose, was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days and ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. He was also placed on two years’ probation and faces a two-year suspension if he does not comply with the terms of his disciplinary probation. The order took effect Feb. 19, 2016.

Between 2005 and 2012, Pagkas worked for the owners of a San Jose nightclub on various legal matters. There was no retainer agreement, and he informally billed them without invoices. In the spring of 2011, the relationship started to deteriorate. The owners asked Pagkas for information regarding ongoing legal issues, but Pagkas did not provide a substantive response. They eventually started questioning Pagkas about the fees they’d already paid and asked him for billing information and files. Pagkas never provided a response of any substance, did not provide an accounting of the fees paid, did not provide billing information and delayed in providing them with their files.

In mitigation, he entered into a prefiling stipulation with the State Bar.

He had one prior discipline, a 2011 suspension for improper pecuniary interest adverse to a client and failure to perform competently or report sanctions in excess of $1,000.

May 14, 2011

ANTHONY EMMANUEL PAGKAS [#186112], 45, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 30-day suspension and he was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 14, 2011.

Pagkas stipulated to three counts of misconduct during his representation of a defendant in a lawsuit. He did not respond to interrogatories, and although the client hired a new lawyer, the court entered a default judgment against the client of $730,466.

The client sued Pagkas for malpractice and as that suit went forward, Pagkas bought the rights to the judgment from the plaintiff. He then tried to obtain from his former client consideration for the judgment that he now held. He originally asked for $100,000, hoping to get one-third of that. He also sought to intervene in the appeal and asked the court to be substituted in for the plaintiff to offset any future malpractice award.

The court of appeal denied his request, found that Pagkas violated his fiduciary duty to his former client and sanctioned him $5,260, payable to the former client.

Pagkas stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or report the sanction to the State Bar and he obtained an interest adverse to his client.

In mitigation, Pagkas cooperated with the bar’s investigation.

Start New Search »