On Wednesday, April 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of California disbarred attorney Victor Stephen Haltom, prohibiting him from practicing law in the state and striking his name from the roll of attorneys. The court’s decision followed a series of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bar of California.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Victor Stephen Haltom,” with case number S289066.
The disciplinary process began when the State Bar served Haltom with notices of disciplinary charges on May 20, 2024, via certified mail to his official membership address, as required by Rule 5.25 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. Additional courtesy copies were sent by first-class mail and uploaded to his State Bar profile, with notifications emailed to his registered email address. Despite these efforts, Haltom did not respond within the required 20-day period.
On June 25, 2024, Trial Counsel Christian Brennan attempted further contact by phone and email, including alternate contact information uncovered by a State Bar investigator. These attempts also went unanswered.
On July 2, 2024, the State Bar filed a motion for entry of default due to Haltom’s failure to respond, which was served by certified and first-class mail. The motion included a declaration of reasonable diligence to notify Haltom and warned that failure to respond within 10 days would result in the facts of the charges being deemed admitted, leading to a recommendation for disbarment. Haltom did not file a response, and on July 18, 2024, the State Bar Court entered his default, placing him on inactive status and deeming the allegations in the disciplinary charges admitted.
Under Rule 5.83, Haltom had 90 days from July 18, 2024, to file a motion to set aside or vacate the default, but did not do so. The State Bar then filed a petition for disbarment, supported by declarations confirming Haltom’s lack of contact, four pending disciplinary matters, two prior disciplinary records, and a payment of $4,700 plus a $182 processing fee by the Client Security Fund due to his conduct. The petition met all requirements under Rule 5.85, including proper service, reasonable efforts to notify, proper entry of default, and allegations supporting violations of the Business and Professions Code.
The Supreme Court’s order requires Haltom to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, performing specified acts within 30 and 40 days of the filing date. He must also pay $5,000 in monetary sanctions to the State Bar’s Client Security Fund, enforceable as a money judgment. Costs were awarded to the State Bar under Business and Professions Code sections 6086.10 and 6140.7, collectible by any legal means.
According to Avvo, Mr. Haltom is a criminal defense attorney in Sacramento, California. He acquired his law license in California in 1991.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
