Charles Gadsden Kinney - #66428
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
5826 Presley Way
Oakland, CA 94618
|Phone Number:||(510) 654-5133|
|Fax Number:||Not Available|
||Undergraduate School:||Univ of California Berkeley; Berkeley CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA|
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.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|
|6/24/2016||09-O-18100||Opinion [PDF] [WORD]|
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.
June 24, 2016
Judge calls disbarred attorney ‘relentless bully’A San Francisco Bay Area attorney described as a “relentless bully” for the numerous meritless lawsuits he filed to pursue his and his clients’ grievances, has been stripped of his license to practice law.A three-judge State Bar Court review panel ordered CHARLES GADSEN KINNEY [#66428], 66, of Oakland, disbarred June 24, 2016, noting his “previously unblemished” 31 years of practicing law did not at all make up for his egregious misconduct.“We recommend Kinney’s disbarment as the only discipline adequate to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession,” Review Judge Richard A. Honn wrote on behalf of the panel.Kinney’s misconduct – and the array of frivolous lawsuits that surrounded it – stemmed from two separate disputes between neighbors over residential property.In the fall of 2005, Kinney and Kimberly Jean Kempton purchased a home in Los Angeles as tenants in common. From June 2006 to May 2009, they brought six lawsuits over a fence and a driveway against their neighbors, including an 18-year-old boy, the previous owner of the house and her real estate broker and the city of Los Angeles.Though he repeatedly lost the cases and was slapped with thousands of dollars in sanctions and reprimands, Kinney and Kempton repeatedly appealed each case unsuccessfully. As a result, the neighbors were forced to spend thousands of dollars defending the suits and lived under constant fear and stress, Honn wrote.In an Aug. 7, 2007 statement of decision in the case, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Grimes wrote that Kinney acted with “unclean hands,” noting he had concerns before buying the house but made no effort to resolve his issues with his neighbors before filing the lawsuits.“He has not committed fraud or theft, which is ordinarily the case when courts find unclean hands. Yet he robbed his neighbors of the peace and sanctuary of their homes, and ‘mocked the system’ with his baseless litigation against the city and its citizens, the judge wrote.”In addition, a couple hired Kinney to represent them after they were sued for blocking construction on an easement on which their neighbors were lawfully trying to build. Though the neighbors ultimately got a permanent injunction preventing Kinney’s clients from interfering with their use of the easement, Kinney twice tried to appeal but was unsuccessful because he had no basis for doing so. He also filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court that was denied.