LeRue J Grim - #37485

This member is active and may practice law in California.

See below for more details.

Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

Explanation of common actions

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.

January 29, 1998

LeRUE JAMES GRIM [#37485], 69, of San Francisco was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for two years with four months of an actual suspension, effective Jan. 29, 1998. He was ordered to pass the MPRE and comply with rule 955.

In four different matters, Grim stipulated to failure to perform competently, maintain respect for the courts, communicate significant case developments and improper withdrawal from employment.

Breakdowns in Grim's client relationships occurred because of his chaotic office practices and lack of written records which hindered client communications and attorney accountability.

He decided in good faith not to continue to pursue some cases, but neglected to inform clients or protect them from possible prejudice.

In one case, Grim represented a woman in 1986 who was having problems with a real estate matter. The woman attended law classes taught by Grim in his office. Although he initially regarded the case as pro bono, the woman paid him a total of $5,000 in the course of the next six years.

Grim did some work on the case, but the woman became frustrated and eventually hired another attorney to take over, paying him $1,900. However, the attorney told her the matter had become so complex due to Grim's inactivity, she should return to Grim to straighten it out. By this time the woman had filed a complaint with the State Bar.

She went back to Grim, who then drafted a complaint in the real estate matter, but never filed it. The woman fired him in 1993.

Meanwhile, the piece of property in question was sold, without the knowledge of Grim or his client. Grim maintained that his client was not forthcoming with her information and fabricated portions of her story.

The client took Grim to arbitration and was awarded $4,300. Grim appealed the award in municipal court and sought additional fees. The client filed a cross complaint for malpractice, but never appeared in court.

In aggravation, Grim has a prior record of discipline going back to 1983.

In addition, Grim harmed his clients when at least three of them lost their causes of action. And in one case, a couple lost an $80,000 arbitration award when he abandoned them in superior court at the trial de novo.

Grim did not display insight into his misconduct or atonement for the problems which resulted. He blamed his clients for their troubles, calling two of them liars, portraying two as emotionally unstable and another as dysfunctional and angry.

Grim presented six character witnesses to offer evidence of his good character and reputation in the community. However, the evidence was not considered significantly mitigating.

Grim testified in mitigation that between 10 and 25 percent of his practice has been pro bono, he gives weekly current events lectures to senior citizens, he founded a small university dealing with the philosophy of naturalism and supports his five young children. He apologized for any anguish he may have caused.