On Wednesday, January 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of Califonia disbarred attorney Kent Vanderschuit for incompetence and failure to participate in the proceeding in regard to his disciplinary charges.
The case is entitled “In the matter of Kent Vanderschuit” and was brought by the Florida Bar with case no. S277360.
Improper withdrawal from employment.
Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.
On February 2, 2022, the State Bar of California issued a Notice of Disciplinary Charges against attorney Kent Vanderschuit, reminding the respondent that he has 20 days to answer or else he will not be permitted to practice law.
In a Decision and Order of Involuntary Inactive Enrollment of the State Bar of California, dated October 3, 2022, it was stated that the respondent, Mr. Kent is charged with two counts of Professional Misconduct in a single client for failure to perform legal services with competence and failing to keep the client reasonably informed of the developments of his case. The respondent then was suspended for one year. Despite the notification and opportunity for the respondent to participate in the said proceeding, the latter failed to do so. And as set forth in the rules, the Court recommends for the disbarment of attorney Kent.
The filing states:
“By failing to take any action on Ms. Greenbauer’s behalf after responding to her email on February 2, 2021, respondent constructively terminated respondent’s employment on or about February 3, 2021, and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to respondent’s client, Gina Greenbauer, in willful violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16(d).”
The filing continues:
“Respondent failed to respond to the NDC or otherwise participate in these proceedings. Therefore, on March 28, 2022, OCTC timely filed a motion for entry of Respondent’s default, which it had properly served on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his official State Bar records address. The motion included a supporting declaration of reasonable diligence by OCTC stating the additional steps taken to provide notice to Respondent. (Rule 5.80.) It also notified Respondent that if he did not timely move to set aside his default, the court would recommend his disbarment.”
The filing additionally states:
“It is recommended that Kent VanderSchuit, State Bar Number 192674, be disbarred from the practice of law in California and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.”
Consistent with the factual findings and recommendation of the State Bar of California, the Court agreed that the respondent must be sanctioned accordingly, thus, the Court issued an Order to disbar attorney Kent Vandershuit.
The Disposition states:
“The court orders that Kent VanderSchuit (Respondent), State Bar Number 192674, is disbarred from the practice of law in California and that Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.
The respondent must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the date this order is filed. (Athearn v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 38, 45 [the operative date for identification of clients being represented in pending matters and others to be notified is the filing date of this order].)”
As of today, Mr. VanderSchuit is listed as the owner of Vanderschuit Law Group. His info can be found on Linkedin. Kent practices in Carlsbad, California. He is licensed in California.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.