Anthony Emmanuel Pagkas - #186112
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Pagkas & D'Anjou, L.L.P.
777 N 1st St Ste 250
San Jose, CA 95112
|Phone Number:||(408) 291-5401|
|Fax Number:||(408) 291-5302|
||Undergraduate School:||Univ of San Francisco; San Francisco CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||UC Davis SOL King Hall; Davis CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|2/19/2016||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|9/14/2012||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|5/14/2011||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|12/11/1996||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
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|
|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]|
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.