Home > Public >  Attorney Search > Attorney Profile

Attorney Search

 

Richard Isaac Fine - #55259

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: 55259    
Address: Richard Fine & Associates
468 N Camden Dr #200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone Number: (310) 277-5833
Fax Number: (310) 277-1543
e-mail: fcahqmqub@rtt.eduqmmaktn@bshln.eduawlnpm@fgoml.educbdlemg@fmyj.govojudw@rjbuwnhw.edulmqywgyc@hnhhb.orgfwhp@dbnu.comrksyjte@ukq.comiltckgm@nqstk.eduhyelpc@eqqbdt.orgrajneyf@slkr.govrifinelaw@earthlink.netkachecyt@gtnqus.edupylrpa@oyuphwc.netbllukif@imf.edublcfjq@kdphe.netpywjqp@edrnsy.orgemjqyiqpe@ydf.orgwkeiu@athbmrj.orgsasffpat@iifuuyky.com 
County: Los Angeles
Undergraduate School: Univ of Wisconsin; Madison WI
District: District 2    
Sections: None Law School: Univ of Chicago Law School; Chicago IL

Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Disbarred
3/13/2009 Disbarred  
10/17/2007 Not Eligible To Practice Law  
5/3/1973 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.

3/13/2009 Disbarment 04-O-14366 Disbarred 
10/17/2007 Ordered inactive 04-O-14366 Not Eligible To Practice Law 

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
3/13/2009 04-O-14366 Opinion [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 13, 2009

RICHARD I. FINE [#55259], 69, of Beverly Hills was disbarred March 13, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20.

The State Bar Court’s review department upheld a hearing judge’s recommendation that Fine be disbarred because he committed 16 acts of moral turpitude in numerous civil proceedings. Although the appellate panel reversed some of the lower court’s culpability findings, it found that the judge’s disbarment recommendation was appropriate in light of Fine’s “repeated abuse of the judicial process.”

Fine raised several procedural and constitutional claims for the first time on review, and they were rejected. Fine also attacked the sufficiency of the culpability findings, but the review department upheld those for the most part, finding that the hearing judge “fairly and fully reviewed” the evidence.

Fine repeatedly sued both state and federal judges, challenging their qualifications. His misconduct started with a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles in which the commissioners ruled against Fine’s request for attorney fees. Thus began “a pattern of deliberately misusing the process for challenging a judicial official,” wrote review Judge Joann Remke. “Even after (Fine) was repeatedly warned and sanctioned for his abusive behavior in state court, (he) continued his tactics in the federal courts where he repeatedly filed meritless lawsuits against judicial officers.”

When his case went before the bar court, he filed 27 motions to disqualify various judges: five against the trial judge, five against the supervising judge, three against other judges who were not involved, six motions to disqualify the presiding judge of the review department and eight to disqualify the other review judges.

Fine has long contended that the charges against him are politically motivated. The cases he filed against judges were not retaliatory, he said, but instead were based on his belief that judges who accept money from a county fund to augment their compensation have a conflict of interest in any matter involving government municipalities.

Fine was jailed indefinitely in March on contempt of court charges — for refusing to answer a judge’s questions and practicing law without a license. He remained in jail last month.


Start New Search »