<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>SAN FRANCISCO \u2013 Tina Tran, an attorney who practices in Walnut Creek, was\ndisbarred March 18 after being charged with five violations of the Rules\nof Professional Conduct and the Business and Professions Code.</p>\n\n<p>In the official Supreme Court document, it explained that\nTran failed to participate, either in person or through counsel; therefore, a default\nadmission of guilt was accepted. The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel also filed\na petition for disbarment. </p>\n\n<p>\u201CThe law provides that if an attorney\u2019s default is entered\nfor failing to respond to the notice of disciplinary charges (NDC), and the\nattorney fails to have the default set aside or vacated within 90 days, the\nState Bar will file a petition requesting the court to recommend the attorney\u2019s\ndisbarment,\u201D the petition said. </p>\n\n<p>In Tran\u2019s case, the court also concluded that the\nrequirements for disbarment had been satisfied and disbarred her from the\npractice of law. </p>\n\n<p>First, the Supreme Court document stated that Tran willfully\nfailed to perform legal services with competence by failing to prepare a will\non behalf of her client, Anita Heidisch-Becker. </p>\n\n<p>Second, Tran allegedly failed to respond to reasonable client status\ninquiries and to inform the client of significant developments by not staying\nin contact with the client. She was also accused of willfully violating the\nRules of Professional Conduct, mainly the failure to return client papers and property\nwhen it was requested by the client. That included allegedly never returning the $3,000\nin unearned fees to the client. </p>\n\n<p>Tran was also accused of not cooperating with the State Bar after\ntheir request for information, which also violates Codes of Conduct set forth\nby the Bar. </p>\n\n<p>Based on the evidence provided, the court ordered that Tran be\ndisbarred from the practice of law in the state and that her name\nbe stricken from the roll of attorneys. </p>\n\n<p>\u201CThe court concludes that the requirements of rule 5.85(F)\nhave been satisfied, and (Tran\u2019s) disbarment is recommended,\u201D the document\nsaid. </p>\n\n<p>\u201CThe court also recommends that (Tran) be ordered to make\nrestitution to Anita Heidisch-Becker in the amount of $3,000 plus 10 percent\ninterest per year from Jan. 15, 2014,\u201D the order said. \u201CAny restitution owed\nto the Client Security Fund is enforceable as provided in Business and\nProfessions Code section 6140.5, subdivisions (c) and (d).\u201D</p>\n\n<p>The court also recommended that Tran be ordered to comply\nwith the requirements of the California Rules of Court and to perform the acts\nspecified within 30 and 40 days, respectively, after the effective date of the\nSupreme Court order. </p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://norcalrecord.com/stories/510977069-walnut-creek-attorney-disbarred-allegedly-failed-to-prepare-client-s-will>