Demas W Yan - #257854
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
100 Pine St Ste 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111-5235
|Phone Number:||(415) 867-5797|
|Fax Number:||Not Available|
||Undergraduate School:||San Jose State Univ; San Jose CA|
|CLA Sections:||None||Law School:||Northwestern California U; Sacramento CA|
|California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
|This member has no public record of administrative actions.|
Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
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.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|
|3/28/2014||09-O-12085||Order re Costs [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.
March 16, 2018
Demas W. Yan [#257854], 54, of San Francisco was disbarred effective March 16, 2018. He was also ordered to notify all his clients of the discipline and perform other obligations under rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Yan was found culpable on 27 counts of misconduct involving seven cases, in matters arising out of four separate notices of disciplinary charges issued between December 2014 and January 2017. Yan was found to have made numerous false representations to various courts, filing numerous frivolous unwarranted actions in bankruptcy court and civil court, failing to pay sanctions or obey other court orders, failing to report the imposition of sanctions to the State Bar and making false assertions to various courts including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yan has one prior disciplinary action. In 2013 he was suspended from practice for one year and placed on probation for three years for negligently misappropriating funds, comingling personal and client funds, representing adverse interests, and improperly receiving unemployment benefits.
October 11, 2013
DEMAS W. YAN [#257854], 49, of San Francisco, was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on three years’ probation with an actual one-year suspension and ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. The order took effect Oct. 11, 2013.In March 2012, Yan stipulated to misconduct in one client matter: misuse of his client trust account and receiving unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled for one month. The following August, the California Supreme Court returned the matter to the State Bar for further consideration as to the appropriate level of discipline.In concluding that his misconduct warranted a one-year actual suspension, the State Bar Court found that Yan committed misconduct by not depositing $2,000 in advanced costs in his client trust account and misappropriating the $2,000. He also failed to avoid representation of adverse interests because he represented a client in one matter while suing him in another. He did not inform the client of the conflict or obtain his written consent.In addition, Yan deposited his own funds in his IOLTA account for his own use and benefit to pay his bills and claimed unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled.In mitigation, Yan was young and inexperienced at the time of his misconduct, cooperated with the State Bar by entering into a stipulation and showed remorse for his wrongdoing.