Frank Offen - #62302
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Law Ofc Frank Offen
420 3rd St # 210
Oakland, CA 94607
|Phone Number:||(510) 832-1104|
|Fax Number:||(510) 832-0761|
||Undergraduate School:||Univ of California; CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||Golden Gate Univ SOL; San Francisco CA|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
|Effective Date||Description||Case Number||Resulting Status|
Disciplinary and Related Actions
|5/14/2005||Discipline, probation; no actual susp.||04-O-11274|
|This member has no public record of administrative 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.
May 14, 2005
FRANK OFFEN [#62302], 57, of Oakland was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect May 14, 2005.Offen filed a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of a client but did not file a proof of service and claims he did not receive notice of a conference with the court. The court dismissed the case, but Offen claims he did not receive the order. The defendant did not receive notice of the dismissal because it had not made a court appearance prior to the dismissal.Offen served the defendant with the complaint after the case was dismissed. The defendant learned of the dismissal when its lawyer attempted to file her answer. Offen did not take any steps to respond to discovery or to prepare his client for her deposition, and he failed to appear at the deposition.Months later, Offen gave his client form interrogatories and asked her to prepare responses. At the time, he knew the case was dismissed. The client finally learned of the dismissal when she went to court herself — 23 months after the case was dismissed. Offen told her the court had made a mistake, that he didn’t know about the dismissal and that he would petition the court to reopen the case. He did no further work.He stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or keep a client informed about developments in her case.In mitigation, he has no prior discipline and he agreed to compensate his client.