Modesto, CA 95354
22 December 2021 | Resigned (2 years, 9 months ago) Resignation with charges pending 21-Q-30043 |
---|---|
15 January 2021 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (3 years, 8 months ago) Vol.inactive(tender of resign.w/charges) 21-Q-30043 |
16 February 2020 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 7 months ago) Actual Suspension Delayed 16-O-10780 |
7 February 2020 | Active (4 years, 7 months ago) |
1 February 2020 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (4 years, 7 months ago) Actual Suspension Delayed 16-O-10780 |
1 December 2019 | Probation with conditions 16-O-10780 (4 years, 9 months ago) |
10 September 2018 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 16-O-10780 (6 years ago) |
15 May 2003 | Active (21 years, 4 months ago) |
15 November 2002 | Not eligible to practice law in CA (21 years, 10 months ago) Discipline w/actual suspension 96-O-02494 |
7 April 2001 | Public reproval with/duties 99-O-13689 (23 years, 5 months ago) |
23 August 1999 | Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 96-O-02494 (25 years, 1 month ago) |
6 June 1967 | Admitted to the State Bar of California (57 years, 4 months ago) |
November 15, 2002 THOMAS OSCAR GILLIS [#40186], 62, of Modesto was suspended for three years, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a six-month actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Nov. 15, 2002. The State Bar Court's review department agreed with a hearing judge's finding that Gillis failed to avoid interests adverse to his client, keep confidential the amount of a settlement, both acts of moral turpitude, and a third act of moral turpitude in relation to Gillis' response to investigation letters from the bar.Gillis sold his residential property to his client in exchange for a substantial portion of a $250,000 settlement he obtained as the result of the client's son's wrongful death.The settlement agreement required Gillis and the client to keep the amount confidential, but he disclosed to his lender the amount of the settlement.The court found that Gillis, who was in arrears on his home loan, disclosed the information to the lender for the sole purpose of gaining time to bring his delinquent payments current. He therefore placed his interests above those of his client.In selling her the property, Gillis, his secretary and his fiancee encouraged the client to seek outside counsel but she refused. However, she was poorly educated, had never worked or had a checking account and had no credit record. Gillis did not order a title report or provide the client with a real estate transfer statement or give her any assistance in assuming his loan. The lender continued to send monthly statements to Gillis.When the client stopped making payments on the property, it was foreclosed on.The court found that the terms of Gillis' business transaction with his client were not "fair and reasonable" to the client in all repsects and that the transaction was a breach of his fiduciary duty to her.It also found that Gillis tried to mislead a bar investigator, committing an act of moral turpitude.In mitigation, Gillis practiced for 26 years without any discipline. |
Other Language Spoken by the Law Office Staff | Spanish |
---|