Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams

He was found guilty to violate the penal code section, i.e. 243.4. A probation period was granted that is equal to thirty-six months; there are some terms and conditions as well.
5 posts appointed by Edmund G. Brown Jr.
There are two psychiatrists, one person from the administration of the hospital, one internist and four of the other people; they were appointed by the Health’s advisory council of the department on Thursday.
There are 4 appointees; they are:
1. Ruth Terry; he is the assistant clinical professor at the University of California (San Francisco)
2. Paula Siegel; he has worked for a number of times for the free health clinics in the region of San Diego
3. Armando Morales; he is the associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the UCLA
4. Larry Thompson; he is the administrator of Seneca Hospital in the region of Chester.
Some other people who have an important role in this case are:
• Dr. David Flanagan; he an Oceanside psychiatrist
• Dr. Robert L. LeMaile-Williams; he is an internist from Los Angeles
• Dr. Noel Morrell; he is a child psychiatrist from Menlo Park
• Carmen Carrillo; he is the director of clinical services (El Centro De Salud Mental)
In the end of June, in the year 2009, LeMaile-Williams was found guilty by a jury of the County Superior Court of LA. He was found guilty because of sexual battery. Then almost one month later, he was sentenced and it included the probation for long terms. In it, it was decided that he was supposed to serve in the jail for about one hundred and fifty days and register to be one of the sex offenders.
After his formal declaration of guilt, he fielded an Appeal Notice. LeMaile-Williams’ imposition of the jail sentence was supposed to be suspended, and then he got released from the prison. But there was a summary probation of three years on which he was placed. There was an order for him for completing the therapy in a period of twenty-six weeks but still he needed to be registered as an offender of sex. The administrative law judge heard the hearing and LeMaile-Williams was prohibited by the restriction from having any sort of contact with the feminine patients.
In the end of October, in 2009, LeMaile-Williams argued about his case after the Petition for Interim Suspension. Then in the beginning of November, the judge granted an Order of Interim Suspension; it prohibited LeMaile-Williams not to practice medicine until a complete hearing from the administration. In March 2010, there was an Accusation heard against LeMaile-Williams by the judge of the administrative law.
A document from the medical board states that:
The conviction of the respondent and the requirement for registering as an offender of sex
6. In the month of June 2009, Robert LeMaile-Williams (the respondent) was declared to be guilty after the trial by a jury of his crime of sexual battery in violating Penal Code section 243.4 with a subdivision.
7. In the month of July 2009, the encumbrance of the sentence was supposed to be suspended and Robert LeMaile-Williams was then placed on the probation for a time period of three years with some specific terms as conditions. It was also included in it that he had to serve for 150 days in the jail and pay the fines with a total amount of $7,250. He had to complete twenty-six weeks of counseling and stay almost one hundred yards away from his crime victim.
8. As a conclusion of the conviction of Robert LeMaile-Williams, he was also given the orders for getting registered as an offender of sex inconsistent to Penal Code section 290.
9. Robert LeMaile-Williams fielded an Appeal Notice in within the time from his formal declaration of crime. However, inconsistent with Penal Code section 1467, his appeal definitely does not stay automatically as the requirement for him to be registered as an offender of sex. Any kind of motion has not been made by the respondent (Robert LeMaile-Williams) in the court of the crime for staying or expunging the need that he registered as an offender of sex.
10. There was no direct evidence presented related to the conduct of the respondent that was underlying the declaration of his crime. According to the crime accounts that were included in the complaint of crime and the post-conviction of the prosecutor briefly sentenced that a female sales representative of pharmacy was sexually battered by Robert LeMaile-Williams when he paid a visit to the office. He first sucked on the toes of that female and then compelled her to expose herself and grabbed and sucked on her breast. However, the other side is that Robert LeMaile-Williams (the respondent) did not deny the version of the prosecutor that was presented about the event.

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams were submitted by user(s) and have been published as-is. does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on Robert Lawrence LeMaile-Williams at any cost whatsoever.