Philip Allen Putman - #51368

See below for more details.

Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.

Explanation of common actions

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.

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.

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.

October 27, 2000

PHILIP A. PUTMAN [#51368], 65, of Huntington Beach was suspended for nine months, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 27, 2000.

The State Bar Court review department upheld a hearing judge’s findings that Putman failed to comply with probation conditions attached to a private reproval (he did not submit quarterly probation reports)

The private reproval, issued in 1995, was the result of Putman’s failure to communicate with a client, perform legal services competently or return a client’s documents, as well as improperly sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer and improperly withdrawing from employment.

The hearing judge also found in another matter that Putman failed to comply with a court order or report sanctions to the State Bar. In that case, Putman represented the husband in a dissolution of marriage petition, and brought a civil action against the wife’s attorney, accusing him of wrongs arising from the family law action.

Despite an appellate court decision which made Putman’s claims moot, he pursued his claims, forcing the wife and her lawyer to defend themselves. He and his client were sanctioned $1,500. Although the client paid $1,100, Putman never paid the sanction or reported it to the bar.

The hearing judge declined to credit Putman’s testimony that many of his difficulties were the fault of his former law partners.

The review department further rejected Putman’s argument that he delegated his compliance to others who did not follow through and that he was the victim of a conspiracy by other attorneys to ruin him.