David Ross Olick - #72152
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
David R. Olick
3450 Sacramento St # 509
San Francisco, CA 94118
|Phone Number:||(707) 750-1005|
|Fax Number:||(925) 401-9419|
||Undergraduate School:||Syracuse Univ; Syracuse NY|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||McGeorge SOL Univ of the Pacific; CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|2/14/2003||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|12/22/1976||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
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.
February 14, 2003
DAVID ROSS OLICK [#72152], 61, of Benicia was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a nine-month actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Feb. 14, 2003.Olick appealed the findings of a hearing court judge, but the review department upheld the findings and increased the recommended discipline.Olick substituted in to a wrongful death suit. After he amended the suit, the previous law firm intervened to protect its claim for attorney fees. Olick then accused the firm of breach of fiduciary duty and infliction of emotional distress.Although he agreed to distribute most of the $100,000 settlement to his minor clients upon approval of their compromise, he did not effect the compromise for 30 months. He filed two more actions in different counties against the law firm that previously represented his clients. One was dismissed and Olick was sanctioned $15,000, and Olick himself dismissed the second. The review department found that Olick failed to perform legal services competently by not completing the original case and filing a cross-complaint on behalf of litigants who had no standing. The court also found he pursued an unjust action.In a second matter, an individual who had been fired from his job consulted with Olick about an agreement the employer wanted him to sign in order to receive severance payment. He provided documents to Olick.The client also met with an agent for the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, who wanted to speak to Olick before deciding whether to issue a "right to sue" letter. Ten months later, on the last possible day to file suit, Olick called the agent and simultaneously told the client he didn't want to handle his case. He did not return what he said was the client's file until the client contacted a radio consumer affairs reporter. The file consisted of a single sheet of paper bearing the man's name and phone number.The review department said Olick failed to communicate with the client, act competently or return his papers.In a third matter, he also failed to return a client's papers.In mitigation, Olick practiced since 1976 without any discipline and he performed community service activities.