Back in 2011, I wrote this, in which I simultaneously expressed my appreciation for the merits of the Court of Appeal's opinion as well as my utter shock that the Bar had done utterly nothing about the underlying attorney, Charles Kinney. I said:
"But as for the Bar: What the hell?! The Court of Appeal discusses at great length the long and troubling history of Charles Kinney, who started his vexatious serious of litigations in 2006. He was declared a vexatious litigant in 2008. He's subject to a prefiling order, has been sanctioned for tens of thousands of dollars, etc. etc.
So he's certainly been disbarred at this point, right?
Nope. Not at all. Hasn't even been subjected to an iota of discipline by the California Bar. Still free to practice law on behalf of clients and abuse the legal system accordingly."
It's now 2017. This opinion recounts yet another appeal by Mr. McKinney. One aptly described by the Court of Appeal as follows: "This appeal, like the numerous appeals
before, lacks merit. We grant Clark’s motion to dismiss the
appeal because it is frivolous."
But at least the Bar has now caught up with the times. Albeit half a decade after even a casual observer like me was stunned that Mr. McKinney hadn't yet been disbarred. As the Court of Appeal gleefully (at least for me) explains in a footnote:
"Kinney is no longer licensed by the State Bar of
California. In June 2016, he was disbarred for his conduct in the
Fernwood property litigation as well as his conduct in
representing clients in another residential property dispute
involving an easement. On the court’s own motion, we take
judicial notice of the opinion and order of the State Bar of
California Review Department, filed on December 12, 2014 in
case numbers 09-O-18100 and 09-O-18750, setting forth the
reasons for the recommendation of disbarment (Kinney’s conduct
in the property dispute litigation)."
Finally.
