TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Date: 10/04/2024

Case No: ES020118 Trial Date: None set 

Case Name: In the Matter of Dongli Wang

MOTION TO TERMINATE JURISDICTION OVER UNAUTHORIZED LAW PRACTICE

Moving Party: State Bar of California   

Responding Party: Dongli Wang aka Tony Wang dba Norman Immigration Law Center, Norman Immigration Law Group, Norman Immigration Law Office (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

This case arose upon the filing by the State Bar of California (the State Bar) of a petition and application for assumption of jurisdiction over the law practices of Dongli Wang aka Tony Wang dba as Norman Immigration Law Center, Norman Immigration Law Group and Norman Immigration Law Office, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 6126.3, based on a State Bar Investigator’s finding that there is probable cause to believe that Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

On July 29, 2016, this Court granted interim orders and assumed jurisdiction over Respondent’s unauthorized law practice and appointed the State Bar to perform various acts related to the assumption of jurisdiction. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued a permanent order assuming jurisdiction over Respondent’s unauthorized law practice located at 27 W. Valley Blvd. Suite 288-A, San Gabriel, CA 91766 and appointed the State Bar to do, among other things, the following: 

1. Examine, retrieve, remove, and secure in a protected area any and all files, records, and other property pertaining to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice that were located at Respondent’s business address and obtain information for any pending matters that may require attention. 

2. Notify persons and entities whom the State Bar reasonably believed to be Respondent’s clients of the occurrence of the event or events stated in subdivision (a) of Section 6126 and inform them that it may be in their best interest to obtain legal counsel. 

3. Give notice of the Court’s order to the appropriate persons, clients, entities, and depositors, who may be affected by the Court’s order. 

4. Retain all client files and property retrieved from Respondent’s unauthorized law practice and arrange for delivery to the client. 

5. Apply to the Court for the appointment of a receiver to take possession and control of any and all bank accounts and funds related to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice. 

6. Do any other acts that may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including but not limited to, the following: 

a. Freeze any and all of Respondent’s bank accounts that were related to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice; 

b. Return to the issuer, or endorse and deposit into Respondent’s unauthorized law practice bank account, or into an account created by the State Bar exclusively for the purpose of maintaining funds related to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice, any check that was made payable to Respondent and related to the unauthorized law practice that was retrieved or received by the State Bar; 

c. Direct Respondent’s internet and telephone service providers to disconnect service or forward any and all telephone calls associated with Respondent’s unauthorized law practice to a designated telephone line at the State Bar, which was established exclusively to receive these calls; 

d. File a change of address notification with the United States Postal Service to forward all mail addressed to Respondent at Respondent’s business address to the State Bar; and 

e. Open and examine all forwarded mail that was addressed to Respondent.

On August 15, 2024, the State Bar filed this motion to terminate jurisdiction over Respondent’s unauthorized law practice and dispose of the remaining client files and property in the State Bar’s possession.

ANALYSIS:

The court is authorized to make an order assuming jurisdiction over an attorney’s practice and to appoint the State Bar to take certain actions upon a finding that a party has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126.3.)  Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6126.3, “[t]he court shall have jurisdiction over the files and records and over the practice of the affected person for the limited purposes of this section . . . .”  (Id., § 6180.5.)

According to the State Bar’s counsel, the State Bar took actions to carry out the Court’s orders and the State Bar has complied with the Court’s orders insofar as possible such that the objects of the Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over Respondent’s law practice has been achieved. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶10.) The State Bar took possession of five client files and seven loose documents pertaining to Respondent’s former clients. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶5.) The State Bar sent letters to Respondent’s clients instructing them on how to request and obtain their files from the State Bar. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 6.) The State Bar also forwarded telephone calls and mail pertaining to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice to the State Bar, and clients who called Respondent’s phone number were provided with instructions on how to obtain their files and were provided with contact information if they were interested in obtaining an attorney. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 7; Mot. Term. Jurisd., p. 5.) As of the date of filing the instant motion, the last request from a former client for a file or document was on August 30, 2016, and the State Bar remains in possession of five client files. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 6.)

The State Bar, although given authority to do so, did not freeze any bank accounts or take possession of any funds related to Respondent’s unauthorized law practice. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 8.)

The State Bar has not received any additional complaints alleging that Respondent continued engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶ 9.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the State Bar has complied with the Court’s September 30, 2016 permanent order and that termination of the Court’s jurisdiction over Respondent’s law practice is appropriate. 

Additionally, while the Court is inclined to grant the State Bar’s request for authorization to destroy any client files from Respondent’s unauthorized law practice which still remain in its possession and are undistributed, the Court will require the State Bar to retain the files for an additional six months from the entry of the order terminating jurisdiction over Respondent’s unauthorized law practice to ensure the former clients have an adequate last opportunity to claim their files before the files are destroyed.  The State Bar is ordered to include a warning in the final notice to the former clients that unclaimed files will be destroyed by the six-month date. 

RULING:

The State Bar’s motion to terminate jurisdiction over Respondent’s unauthorized law practice is GRANTED. The State Bar is ordered to retain client files for an additional six months from the entry of the order terminating jurisdiction and include a warning in the final notice to Respondent’s former clients that unclaimed files will be destroyed by the six-month date.