Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

 

John Michael Schaefer - #35705

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: 35705    
Address: 3930 Swenson St #103
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Phone Number: (702) 792-6710
Fax Number: (702) 792-6721
e-mail: Not Available 
County: Non-California
Undergraduate School: Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA
District: Outside California    
Sections: None Law School: Georgetown Univ Law Ctr; Washington DC

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
11/25/2005 Disbarred  
10/18/2003 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
7/12/1999 Active  
10/31/1997 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
5/5/1997 Active  
1/1/1994 Inactive  
1/1/1987 Active  
1/1/1986 Inactive  
6/9/1964 Admitted to The State Bar of California

Explanation of member status

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Effective DateDescriptionCase NumberResulting Status

Disciplinary and Related Actions

Overview of the attorney discipline system.

11/25/2005 Disbarment 01-J-00034 Disbarred 
10/18/2003 Ordered inactive 01-J-00034 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
10/31/1997 Discipline w/actual suspension 95-H-10931 Not Eligible To Practice Law 
10/28/1993 Public reproval with/duties 90-O-11294  
6/14/1990 Private reproval, public disclosure 87-O-14503  

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

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.

November 25, 2005

JOHN M. SCHAEFER [#35705], 68, of Las Vegas was disbarred Nov. 25, 2005.

Schaefer was disbarred in Nevada for misconduct that included violating a rule requiring fairness to opposing counsel and party, filing a frivolous complaint and refusing to pay court-ordered sanctions, and making false statements in an affidavit filed with the court. He also communicated with a party represented by counsel, offering to dismiss a defendant from a civil action he was handling in exchange for that defendant's testimony in support of Schaefer, who was facing five misdemeanor battery counts. He was convicted of two counts.

Schaefer has been disciplined five times, either in Nevada or California, for a variety of ethical violations.

The California State Bar Court's review department rejected his argument that the offenses he committed in Nevada are "not disciplinable" in California or that the Nevada proceedings violated his constitutional protections.

"We are compelled to conclude that over 20 years, [Schaefer] has engaged in a pattern of very similar misconduct in which he has disregarded those rules designed to assure that lawyers, of all participants in litigation, aid, rather than subvert, the honest administration of justice," wrote Judge Ronald Stovitz for the review panel. Schaefer's "serious pattern of misdeeds is indeed aggravated in our view by his inability to either assume any responsibility for the misconduct he committed or to even show that he understands it."

Schaefer sued his condominium owners association in Nevada to preserve his voting rights and eligibility to run for a seat on the board. The court approved a stipulation that awarded no costs and asked Schaefer to prepare the court order. He did so, awarding himself costs. Opposing counsel eventually won a motion to delete the costs.

He also sued the condo association, charging that its directors conspired to induce a resident to assault him. He contacted the wife of one of the civil defendants and offered to dismiss her husband as a defendant in exchange for his favorable court testimony. The wife had earlier obtained a "no contact" order against Schaefer, which was in effect at the time he contacted her.

In a third matter, Schaefer had sought a receiver for the association and included a trust as a named plaintiff without the trustee's approval. He then tried to induce the trustee to sign a sworn statement granting Schaefer retroactive authority to name the trust as a plaintiff. The Nevada court found the complaint frivolous and imposed a $5,000 sanction that Schaefer refused to pay.

He also repeatedly communicated with the condo association president in seeking to settle litigation, despite the man's request that Schaefer communicate with his lawyer.

October 31, 1997

JAMES MICHAEL SCHAEFER [#35705], 59, of Las Vegas was suspended for one year, stayed, and placed on probation for two years, with a 30-day actual suspension, effective Oct. 31, 1997. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955.

In this opinion on review, Schaefer was found culpable of violating conditions attached to a 1993 public reproval.

Schaefer was publicly reproved in 1993, after he stipulated that his conviction of battery and injury to his spouse was a basis for discipline.

He also admitted: that he wilfully failed to maintain the respect due the courts by disobeying a federal court order; that he engaged in an act of offensive personality toward another lawyer in litigation; and that he failed to safeguard a client’s documents after his representation of the client had ended.

Conditions of his public reproval included filing quarterly reports with the State Bar and providing proof of psychiatric or psychological treatments. He failed to timely comply with those conditions.

Schaefer sought review of the bar court’s decision, but the bar court review department upheld the original finding.

As grounds for review, Schaefer said he was not provided effective assistance of counsel, his violations were not wilful, the bar had a duty to provide the State Bar employee-witness he requested and that his discipline should be reduced to a private reproval.

The review judge disagreed with Schaefer’s points and said that among other things, Schaefer’s claim of excessive discipline was without merit, especially in view of the fact that he initially agreed he could be suspended for six months if he failed to comply with conditions of the 1993 public reproval.


Start New Search »