On Wednesday, January 7, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued an order regarding attorney David William Clark, imposing a three-year suspension from the practice of law, stayed, and placing him on probation for three years, subject to specific conditions. The decision, documented under case number S293852, stems from multiple instances of misconduct detailed in a stipulation between Clark and the State Bar.
The order mandates that Clark be suspended from practicing law for a minimum of two years within the probation period. This suspension includes credit for two prior interim suspensions: one from July 6, 2015, to November 4, 2016, and another commencing May 2, 2018. Clark’s suspension will remain in effect until he provides proof to the State Bar Court demonstrating rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and current knowledge and ability in general law, as per the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, Title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(c)(1).
Clark must also adhere to other probation conditions recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in an order approving a stipulation filed on October 7, 2025. Upon completing the probation period and fulfilling all conditions, the stayed suspension will be terminated.
The stipulation outlines several cases involving Clark, including conviction proceedings and probation referrals. It details incidents of shoplifting, criminal trespass, and being under the influence of a controlled substance. The stipulation acknowledges Clark’s admission of culpability for misconduct.
Specific incidents cited in the stipulation include a 2014 event where Clark altered price codes at a Walmart in Stevenson Ranch, CA, to purchase items at a lower cost. Another incident in 2013 involved Clark removing items from shelves at a Walmart and attempting to leave without paying.
The stipulation also addresses Clark’s failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, which requires attorneys facing suspension to notify clients and other relevant parties. Despite being ordered to comply with rule 9.20, Clark failed to file a declaration of compliance.
Mitigating factors considered include Clark’s admission to wrongdoing, sobriety since April 11, 2017, and participation in a 12-step recovery program. Aggravating factors include multiple criminal convictions and failure to comply with a court order.
The Supreme Court’s order also requires Clark to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the order’s filing date. Failure to do so may result in disbarment or suspension. Clark must also maintain records of compliance as required by the probation conditions.
Clark is mandated to take and provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) to the State Bar’s Office of Case Management and Supervision. Failure to do so may result in suspension, as per California Rules of Court, rule 9.10(b).
Costs are awarded to the State Bar, enforceable under Business and Professions Code sections 6086.10 and 6140.7. Any monetary requirements imposed may be satisfied or waived when authorized by applicable law or court orders.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
