The local bar association presented
Petitioner attorney applied for a review of the findings and decision of the Board of Governors of defendant State Bar of California, which recommended suspension of the attorney for 15 months for violation of Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct R. III; and Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct R. X.
The local bar association presented to the local administrative committee of the state bar four separate complaints against the attorney. The committee held hearings and recommended that the attorney be disbarred. The board of governors accepted some of the findings, but recommended a 15 month suspension. The court determined that the attorney did violate Cal. Bar R., Prof. Conduct R. X by his preparation of complaints that were filed on behalf of clients that he had not met.
ada defense attorney in california The attorney admitted that he had been hired as an employee of a company that solicited personal injury claims, and that he was paid a monthly amount, not related to the complaints or amounts received in settlement of the claims, or through trial. When he went to a state bar conference he learned of the claimed ethical violation, and notified the employer that he would no longer draft the complaints, and that they would have to find another attorney.
The court considered that the case against the attorney was a test case by the state bar, the age of the attorney, his change of behavior before any complaint was made, and reduced the recommended suspension to the nine months that had already elapsed.
The court modified the discipline of the attorney recommended by the state bar to the nine months suspension that had already elapsed.
Petitioner attorney filed an application for reinstatement to the bar, which was recommended by respondent State Bar of California on the parties' stipulation to a two-year probationary period.
Holding that petitioner attorney had not overcome the heavy burden of establishing his rehabilitation, the court rejected the recommendation of respondent state bar and denied petitioner's application for reinstatement. Petitioner had been disbarred for embezzling client funds.
Against the evidence of rehabilitation that was supplied by attorneys and a psychiatrist, the court arrayed a litany of misdeeds that petitioner had committed since his disbarment. This included petitioner's delay in making restitution, his writing bad checks, obtaining loans under alleged deceitful circumstances, and unauthorized practice of law. He had also been associated with some unsavory attorneys who had been suspended or convicted of solicitation. This was not a case in which the applicant had demonstrated slow and steady progress toward rehabilitation since his disbarment.
On the contrary, petitioner continued his misdeeds long after his disbarment. That he finally stopped committing misconduct did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation to warrant reinstatement to the practice of law.
The court denied petitioner attorney's application for reinstatement to the bar. Although the court credited the testimony which tended to prove petitioner's rehabilitation, it gave greater weight to actual misdeeds committed by petitioner during his disbarment, and concluded that petitioner was not sufficiently rehabilitated to resume the practice of law.
