Cynthia Ann Thomas - #96180
Current Status: Disbarred
This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.
See below for more details.
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
5050 Laguna Blvd #112-329
Elk Grove, CA 95758
|Phone Number:||(916) 207-0728|
|Fax Number:||(916) 686-6281|
||Undergraduate School:||Pomona Coll; Claremont CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||UC Davis SOL King Hall; Davis CA|
|Effective Date||Status Change|
|11/24/2008||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|3/23/2007||Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA|
|12/16/1980||Admitted to The State Bar of California|
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/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|
|2/8/2013||09-O-10572||Decision [PDF] [WORD]|
|11/20/2011||09-O-10572||Order re Entry of Default [PDF]|
|3/23/2007||05-O-03452||Stipulation [PDF] [HTML]|
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 8, 2013
CYNTHIA ANN THOMAS [#96180], 58, of Elk Grove was disbarred Feb. 8, 2013, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.Thomas failed to respond to a notice of disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar and her default was entered. The bar moved to disbar her under rule 5.85 of the Rules of Procedure because she made no move to set aside the default within 180 days.The charges were deemed admitted: Thomas engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by arguing a case before the state Supreme Court and using the phrase “attorney at law” in her correspondence while she was suspended and, by failing to tell her client about the suspension, she did not keep her client informed of significant developments.Thomas also was disciplined in 2007 for failing to communicate with a client.
March 23, 2007
CYNTHIA A. THOMAS [#96180], 51, of Elk Grove was suspended for six months, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect March 23, 2007.Thomas was appointed to represent a defendant who wished to appeal a state prison sentence of 25 years to life. She sent her client a copy of the appeal, in which she did not raise an issue the client wished to pursue because her research revealed it did not apply to his case. At the time, Proposition 66, which would have narrowed California's three strikes law, was before the voters. Thomas told her client if it passed, she would file a supplemental brief with the court and if it failed, she would file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.Although the measure was rejected by voters, Thomas did no further work on her client's matter. She did not communicate with him or provide the attorney general's response to her petition or any other materials the client requested.When the client tried to file a supplemental brief on his own, it was rejected because he was represented by counsel. Thomas did not tell the client that the court of appeal affirmed his sentence or advise him of his legal options. When he tried to file a pleading with the Supreme Court, it was rejected because the deadline had passed.Thomas stipulated that she failed to communicate with the client or provide his file.In mitigation, she has no discipline record in 26 years of practice and at the time of the misconduct, she was involved with medical and emotional problems associated with the hospitalization of her mother.