In the Matter of Francis E. Jones, III
2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411
Facts
Francis E. Jones, III was admitted to the California Bar in 1982 and, while employed full-time as an associate at a large defense firm, entered into an agreement with a non-lawyer, Yue K. Lok, to establish a plaintiff personal injury practice. Jones allowed the practice to operate under his name while he continued full-time employment elsewhere and provided only minimal oversight.
Under the arrangement, Jones and Lok agreed to split attorney fees, with Lok effectively running all aspects of the practice. Over a period of more than two years, Lok solicited clients through illegal means, accepted hundreds of personal injury cases in Jones’s name, forged Jones’s signature, handled millions of dollars in settlements, collected more than $600,000 in attorney fees without any attorney performing legal services, and misused approximately $60,000 withheld from settlements to pay medical liens.
Jones had no key to the office, visited it only sporadically, failed to ensure the use of a trust account, failed to supervise settlement disbursements, and did not demand meaningful accounting. Although Jones received information suggesting that Lok was using cappers to solicit cases, he failed to take realistic action to end the arrangement until much later.
When Jones eventually discovered the scope of Lok’s misconduct, he seized the files, reported Lok to law enforcement, and cooperated fully in Lok’s criminal prosecution, which resulted in a felony conviction. Jones also reported himself to the State Bar and used personal funds to satisfy unpaid medical liens arising from Lok’s misconduct.
Charges
- Aiding the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer
- Fee-splitting with a non-lawyer
- Forming a law partnership with a non-lawyer
- Reckless failure to supervise and perform legal services competently
- Breach of fiduciary duties amounting to moral turpitude (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106)
Defenses
Jones argued that he did not know the full extent of Lok’s misconduct, did not condone the use of cappers, and believed Lok was operating within the limits Jones had authorized. He emphasized that he reported the misconduct on his own initiative, cooperated fully with law enforcement and the State Bar, and made lienholders whole using his own funds.
Jones also contended that the hearing judge’s recommended discipline—modeled after In the Matter of Nelson—was appropriate given his candor, cooperation, community service, and lack of prior discipline.
Court’s Ruling
The Review Department affirmed the culpability findings but increased the discipline. The court held that Jones’s near-total abdication of professional responsibilities to a non-lawyer over a multi-year period constituted gross negligence bordering on extreme recklessness and created a substantial risk of harm to clients, lienholders, and the public.
While Jones did not condone Lok’s illegal solicitation practices, the court found that Jones failed to act decisively even after receiving reliable information that misconduct was occurring. Unlike comparable cases, Jones failed to present clear evidence of rehabilitation or of changes in his law practice sufficient to prevent recurrence.
Balancing significant mitigation—candor, cooperation, restitution, and community service—against the magnitude and duration of the misconduct, the Review Department concluded that public protection required substantially greater discipline than recommended by the hearing judge.
Sanctions
| Sanction | Details |
|---|---|
| Stayed Suspension | 3 years |
| Actual Suspension | 2 years, and until proof of rehabilitation, fitness, and learning under Standard 1.4(c)(ii) |
| Probation | 3 years |
| Additional Conditions | Professional Responsibility Exam, law office management conditions, rule 955 compliance, costs |
Tags
Fee-splitting and inadequate supervision can quickly escalate into moral-turpitude discipline. Contact East Bay Law P.C. for experienced California State Bar defense representation.