On Friday, July 14, 2023, the Supreme Court of California issued an order suspending attorney Richard Huynh from practicing law for one year, with the execution of the suspension stayed, and placing Huynh on probation for two years.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Richard Huynh,” with case no. S279850.
The charges cited Business and Professions Code section 6068(a), 6106, 6090.5(a)(2), 6068(j), 6068(m), and California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.8.6(c), Rule 1.3.
Attorney Richard Huynh received an amended notice of disciplinary charges from the State Bar Court Hearing Department in San Francisco. The notice detailed multiple alleged violations against Huynh, including unauthorized practice of law, moral turpitude, misrepresentation, lack of reasonable diligence, failure to respond to client inquiries, and failure to keep clients informed of significant developments. It explicitly warned Huynh that not responding within 20 days or failing to appear at the State Bar Court trial could lead to a default judgment, potentially affecting his status and preventing him from practicing law. Furthermore, it highlighted that neglecting to address these charges might result in additional penalties, such as disbarment and financial sanctions.
The amended notice states:
“You are hereby further notified that if the State Bar Court finds, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 6007(c), that your conduct poses a substantial threat of harm to the interests of your clients or to the public, you may be involuntarily enrolled as an inactive attorney of the State Bar. Your inactive enrollment would be in addition to any discipline recommended by the court..”
Attorney Richard Huynh formally addressed the disciplinary charges brought forward by the State Bar of California. He provided a comprehensive response through his legal representation at the Law Offices of Anthony Radogna. Huynh’s attorney acknowledged the jurisdiction and specific allegations mentioned in the notice of disciplinary charges. Nevertheless, when it came to counts 2-12, Huynh firmly refuted the assertions and presumptions put forth by the State Bar. Additionally, the response included several affirmative defenses. Among these defenses, it was highlighted that the notice of disciplinary charges failed to establish a clear disciplinable offense, citing California State Bar Rule 5.21 (A). Huynh’s response expressed concern over the sufficiency of the facts provided and the adequacy of notice in the counts, asserting that the charges did not meet the standards required by the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California and applicable case law.
As per the agreement on factual details, legal conclusions, and the approved disposition and order, various mitigating factors were taken into account. These factors included Richard Huynh’s clean disciplinary record, his admission of wrongdoing via a pretrial agreement, and the support of his character from colleagues and clients. Additionally, his significant involvement in community service and dedication to pro bono work were duly recognized. While the standard disciplinary guidelines suggested severe penalties, the absence of prior offenses and the presence of substantial mitigating factors led to a recommendation of suspension. Regarding financial penalties, both parties agreed to a $2,500 fine, considering the seriousness of the misconduct but also acknowledging mitigating circumstances. Huynh was also reminded of potential expenses associated with the disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court granted its approval to the recommendation.
The Disposition states:
“The court orders that Richard Huynh (Respondent), State Bar Number 277256, is suspended from the practice of law in California for one year, execution of that period of suspension is stayed, and Respondent is placed on probation for two years subject to the following conditions:
1. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for the first 30 days of probation;
2. Respondent must comply with the other conditions of probation recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Order Approving Stipulation filed on April 10, 2023; and
3. At the expiration of the period of probation, if the Respondent has complied with all conditions of probation, the period of stayed suspension will be satisfied and that suspension will be terminated.”
Mr. Huynh attended the Santa Clara University School of Law. He practices in Los Angeles, California. He is licensed in California with license no. 277256. His info can be found on lawyersjustia.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
