Featured

New Summary Disbarment: Now With Extra Summary!

Keaton largeCalifornia lawyers who commit felony crimes found their sledding a bit tougher on January 1, 2019. On that date new amendments to Business and Professions Code section 6102(c) went into effect, expanding the definition of crimes subject to summary disbarment. Summary disbarment, as the name implies, is disbarment without a hearing where the attorney is allowed to present evidence at mitigating circumstances. The prior version of the statute provided for summary disbarment for felony crimes that involved moral turpitude per se, crimes that involve moral turpitude in every instance. The new version of the statute provides for summary disbarment upon not just for conviction of crimes of moral turpitude per se but also for felony crimes that involve moral turpitude in the surrounding facts and circumstances.

The summary disbarment statute has been around for a long time and it’s gone through many changes. Originally it provided for summary disbarment upon conviction of either a misdemeanor or felony involving moral turpitude (see In the Matter of Rothrock (1940) 16 Cal.2d 449. 451. In the 1950’s, perhaps reflecting a more lawyer-friendly environment, the statute was changed to provide for felony disbarment in crimes where “(1) An element of the offense is the specific intent to deceive, defraud, steal, or make or suborn a false statement” and “(2) The offense was committed in the course of the practice of law or in any manner such that a client of the attorney was a victim.”  In the Matter of Lilly (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 473, 478; 1993 WL 277528.  The statute was amended in 1997 to its penultimate formulation, removing the requirement that the crime victimized a client or occurred in the course of the practice of law and expanding it to any crime of moral turpitude.

Moral turpitude is an “elusive concept incapable of precise general definition.” (In re Higbie (1972) 6 Cal.3d 562, 569. Older case law defined moral turpitude broadly as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” In re O’Connell (1920), 184 Cal. 584, among many other different formulations (see People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 333 (J. Bird, dissenting): “As one commentator stated, “[j]udicial definitions of moral turpitude are so imprecise that it is only a matter of conjecture   whether a particular crime involves it.” (Note, Entrance and Disciplinary Requirements for Occupational Licenses in California (1962) 14 Stan.L.Rev. 533, 542.) With respect to attorney discipline, the definition has been refined through the years to a slightly more precise formulation: “[I]n attorney discipline cases; moral turpitude should be defined with the aim of protecting the public, promoting confidence in the legal system, and maintaining high professional standards.”  In Re Grant (2014), 58 Cal. 4th 469, 476.  Once we get away from the relative certainty of crimes involving dishonesty and intentionally violence, moral turpitude evokes Justice Potter Stewart’s famous (paraphrased) statement on obscenity:  “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

So if the crime itself doesn’t necessarily involve moral turpitude, what does moral turpitude in the surrounding circumstances mean?  In Re Alkow (1966) 64 Cal.2d 838 involved an attorney convicted of voluntary manslaughter, which is not a crime of moral turpitude per se (see People v. Coad (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 1094, 1104).

“After his driver’s license expired in 1961 Alkow made one attempt to secure another license, but it was refused on the ground that he had defective vision.  From the time his license expired until he committed the manslaughter, he was convicted of more than 20 traffic violations, at least 11 of which were for driving without a license. On December 5, 1963, he pleaded guilty to a violation of right of way and driving without a license, and on December 6, 1963, he pleaded guilty to driving without a license and without evidence of registration. He was placed on probation for one year in each action upon the condition that he not violate any laws. On January 16, 1964, he pleaded guilty to a failure to observe a boulevard stop and driving without a license and was placed on probation for one year upon the condition that he not violate any laws and upon the further specific condition that he not drive without a license.

About 6 p.m. on February 15, 1964, while driving without a license in violation of the terms of his probation and the law, he struck and killed a woman pedestrian in Santa Ana. His defective vision was one proximate cause of the accident. Although he did not intend the accident, he knew his vision was defective and reasonably must have known that injury to others was a possible if not a probable result of his driving.

Alkow, at 839–40.  A more contemporary example is the result in an unpublished State Bar Court Review Dept. opinion in In the Matter of Wyatt, State Bar Court case no. 11–C–17662,  2014 WL 642699, filed February 7, 2014.  Wyatt plead nolo contendere to felony vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Penal Code section 191.5.)  Wyatt lied to a police officer about how much he had to drink (his BAC was .18%).  Both the hearing judge and the Review Department found that lie to be moral turpitude in the surrounding circumstance.

An example on the other side of the ledger is In Re Fahey (1973) 8 Cal.3d 842, where an attorney’s repeated failure to file tax returns over a period of years was found not to involve moral turpitude in the surrounding circumstances because expert psychiatric testimony evidence was introduced suggesting that the conduct was the result of Fahey’s “suffering from a psychoneurotic condition that substantially impaired his ability to take proper care of his personal financial affairs.” Fahey, at 850.

Some might say that the change in section 6102(c) isn’t that great since applicable discipline standards (Standard 2.15) provide that disbarment is the presumptive discipline for a felony involving moral turpitude in the surrounding circumstances.  But Wyatt at least had the opportunity to demonstrate mitigation, wanting though it was found, something future respondents in his position won’t enjoy.  There will be a hearing in every felony conviction to determine if it qualifies for summary disbarment and if it does, no further hearing to discuss mitigation.

Over time, the discipline system has gotten less and less sympathetic to attorneys who commit crimes.  This latest change certainly won’t be the last in that progression.  There has never been a worse time to be both an attorney and criminal. But that will change.

Failure to Disclose Lack of Insurance Makes Fee Agreement Unenforceable – Fifth DCA

Hance v. Super Store Industries, Fifth Appellate Dist, case no. F075852, filed 1/23/20.

Lawyers in a class action case agree to divide fees.  They have the class representatives sign fee agreements.   One of the lawyers does not disclose in the fee agreement that he does not have legal malpractice insurance, as required by former Rule 3-410 (current Rule 1.4.2.)  The class representatives approved the fee division agreement, although one class representative later retracted consent.

Needless to say, the lawyers later dispute the fee division agreement.  The trial court approves the class action settlement and the division of fees, awarding 30% ($1.29 million) to the lawyer with the non-compliant fee agreement.  The other lawyer appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. It found it unnecessary to reach arguments that there had been inadequate compliance with former Rule 2-200 (now 1.5.1) and went straight to the heart of the failure to disclose the lack of malpractice insurance.

Noting that the duty disclose was mandatory and a Rule of Professional Conduct, the Court acknowledged the public policy purpose of allowing the client to make an informed choice of counsel, aware of that counsel’s insurance status.  Finding no cases directly addressing the failure to disclose insurance under Rule 3-410, the decision cited a number of cases where the failure to comply with Rules of Professional Conduct resulted in an unenforceable fee agreement, including the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shepard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59.  It found the in pari delicto exception (McInto.sh v. Mills (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 347) inapplicable; because this was an absolute duty under the Rules, the offending lawyer could not be “less morally blameworthy” than his opponent, the one seeking enforcement, despite the opponent’s actions.  Finally, the Court noted that important public purpose of the Rule, overcoming the incentive the uninsured attorneys would have to avoid disclosure.  The agreement was held to be unenforceable.

But all was not lost for the non-compliant lawyer.  Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct don’t always result in loss of all right to compensation, despite the uncompromising language of some of the earlier cases (see Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765.) Citing Sheppard, the Court of Appeal found the factors to be addressed in deciding whether the offending lawyer might recover in quantum meruit, for the reasonable value of the lawyer’s services, as “the egregiousness of the attorney’s conduct, its potential and actual effect on the client and the attorney-client relationship, and the existence of alternative remedies” (Sheppard at 89.)  The trial court never considered recovery in quantum meruit.  The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for consideration of possible quantum meruit recovery, giving the lawyer another bite at the apple but almost certainly less than a $1.9 million bite; while the offending lawyer was counsel of record, most of the work on the case was apparently done by his opponent.

Reversal Reversed: Bradshaw Case Heads Back to State Bar Court

 

The Drexel Bradshaw case was examined in an earlier post on this blog, Reversal of Fortune. Now, fickle Fortune reverses itself again, the California Supreme Court granting a petition from the Office of Chief Trial Counsel by remanding the case back to the Review Department for reconsideration of its July 2019 decision that dismissed the case after a disbarment recommendation from the Hearing Department.  A unanimous Supreme Court asked the Review Department to reconsider the dismissal ‘in light of the June 14, 2019, Amended Statement of Decision on Petition After Trial And Order in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. PTR-17-301118.” It also directed the Review Department to consider whether to return Bradshaw to inactive enrollment under Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c)(4), pending its reconsideration of the underlying disciplinary matter.  That section provides for automatic inactive enrollment whenever a disbarment recommendation is made in the State Bar Court.

While the State Bar functions as the California Supreme Court’s administrative arm in the area of discipline, the high court seldom grants petitions for review by either respondents or the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, although it reviews all the disciplinary recommendations made by the State Bar Court.

Can the Discipline System Address Extreme Incivility?

 

For every wrong, there is a remedy

Civil Code section 3523 Maxims of Jurisprudence

This is a little more than the average “lawyer does bad thing” story that is a staple of the legal press.  A Culver City lawyer who abused opposing counsel with a number of highly offensive email messages, the content of some you can read about here.  A Federal District Court Judge was so incensed (and rightfully so) by this bizarre and over top parade of offensiveness that he has vowed to remove this lawyer from the profession.

Can he do that?

The local rules of the Central District of California provide that “An attorney in practice before this court will… a. Be courteous and civil in all communications, oral and written, and in all proceedings conduct herself/himself with dignity and respect.” (Local Rule 83.4 av1)(a).)  Telling opposing counsel to “eat a bowl of dicks” certainly violates the rule.

But how is it to be enforced?  The preamble to the Code of Conduct in Rule 83.4 is equivocal in its approach

Compliance with high standards of professionalism depends primarily upon understanding the value of clients, the legal system, the public, and lawyers of adhering to the voluntary standards. Secondarily, compliance depends upon reinforcement by peer pressure and public opinion, and finally, when necessary, by enforcement by the courts through their powers and rules already in existence. This code of conduct is not intended to be a set of rules that lawyers can use to incite ancillary litigation on the question of whether the standards have been observed by an adversary, but the court may take any appropriate measures to address violations of the rules.

Emphasis added. Casting even more uncertainty on the process is Local Rule 83.4(b)

Standards of Professional Conduct. Every member of the bar of this court and any attorney permitted to practice in this court must be familiar with and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California, which are now adopted as standards of professional conduct of this court. No attorney permitted to practice before this court will engage in any conduct which degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or in any manner interferes with the administration of justice within the Court.

Before 1996, the answer might have been more clear.  Former California Business and Professions Code section 6068(f) provided that “it is the duty of an attorney to… avoid all offensive personality.”  Mr. Culver City has almost certainly established a new upper bound to the concept of offensive personality.  Prior to 1997, the State Bar of California regularly prosecuted lawyers for violating the offensive personality statue, albeit with mixed results.  But in 1995, the Ninth Circuit rules that the offensive personality stature was unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Wunsch 84 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 1995).  Section 6068(f) was amended to omit the prohibition on offensive personality.

Since then, many civility codes have been promulgated in well-intentioned attempts to address the perceived increase in incivility in the legal profession.  But enforcement has largely been a matter of voluntary adherence or peer pressure, consistent with the preamble of Rule 83.4(a).

The nasty sexist note at issue in Wunsch pales compared to the insane over-the-top rantings in Mr. Culver City’s case. Some attempt will be made by someone to sanction this conduct, to deter others from committing similar conduct.  The State Bar has other tools it can bring to bear, including the prohibition of conduct involving moral turpitude contained in Business & Professions Code section 6106In the Matter of Elkins (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 160, involved discipline based on section 6106, among other rules, imposed on a California lawyer who, after being removed as co-executor of his father’s estate sent 53 threatening and abusive voicemail messages to the successor administrator of the estate, the attorney for the administrator, and the ex officio judge of the Forsyth County Superior Court of North Carolina.  The Review Department bottomed its analysis on the threatening nature of these voicemail messages, which caused the recipients to fear for their personal safety.  Review Department also dismissed Elkins’s First Amendment argument.

Another possibility is new Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), which states that it is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  Long present in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the import of this new section is not yet clear.  But other states have used it to impose discipline and the Supreme Court, which approved this rule, has reminded this that these are intended to be discipline rules, not just statements of aspiration. Not every instance of discourtesy or incivility would prejudice the administration of justice but a prolonged campaign of abuse with the purpose of beating a settlement out of the other side just might.

Those who labored long and hard to bring civility codes into existence may not have labored in vain. Clearly, discipline is an extreme remedy, as Rule 83.4 indicates, but it just might be available in extreme cases.


 

Court of Appeal Finds LegalMatch.com an Unauthorized Legal Referral Service

A very significant new decision from the First Appellate District, Division 4 has found LegalMatch to be an unauthorized legal referral service (Jackson v. LegalMatch.com, case no. A152442, filed 11/26/19.)  The decision reverses a trial court decision after trial that LegalMatch.com was not engaged in referral service activity within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 6155 and remands the case back to the trial court on the issue of whether LegalMatch is culpable of “unclean hands” that bar its ability to recover unpaid subscription fees from attorney Dorian Jackson.

The Court of Appeal bottomed its analysis on the plain language of section 6155.  The section says that “[a]n individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other entity shall not operate for the direct or indirect purpose, in whole or in part, of referring potential clients to attorneys, and no attorney shall accept a referral of such potential clients,” unless “[t]he service is registered with the State Bar of California and . . . is operated in conformity with minimum standards for a lawyer referral serviceestablished by the State Bar” or “is operated in conformity with” standards set by the Supreme Court.  The Court of Appeal noted that section 6155(h)(1) provides that “[p]ermissible joint advertising,among other things, identifies by name the advertising attorneys or law firms whom the consumer of legal services may select and initiate contact with,” while subdivision (h)(2) statesthat “[c]ertifiable referral activity involves, among other things, some person or entity other than the consumer and advertising attorney or law firms which, in person, electronically, or otherwise, refers the consumer to an attorney or law firm not identified in the advertising.”

The appellate court agreed with Jackson the trial court  erred when it found that LegalMatch did not engage in referral activity because it did not exercise judgment on a client’s legal issues. It also found that the term “referral” was not ambiguous and that the “plain and commonsense” meaning of “referral” was clearly applicable to the services that LegalMatch provided, referring clients to lawyers who paid a fee to be matched to clients

Section 6155 provides no definition of “referring” or “referral.” Instead, the statutory text appears to focus on the actof connecting potential clients with attorneys, with the additional requirement that the covered individual or entity operate for the direct or indirect purpose of doing so. (§ 6155, subd. (a).) Read in the context of the statute, the plain meaning of the term “referral” means no more than the “act or an instance of sending or directing to another for information, service, consideration, or decision.” (Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed.Westlaw2019).)

LegalMatch.com is only one of many similar services that have proliffered in the last two decades.  One can wonder that it took the civil courts so long to interpret the very broad and very clear language of the statute.

Moreover, as paying for referrals from an uncertified legal referral service is a cause for discipline under Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2(b)(2), lawyers who are paying subscription fees to services like LegalMatch are subject to potential State Bar action.  The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) has shown no interest in prosecuting such cases since 1996 when it initiated several such cases against lawyers participating in uncertified legal referral service.  Those cases were settled for low-level discipline, private and public reprovals.  This opinion, assuming it survives the inevitable appeal, may push OCTC to prosecute these types of cases again.

On the other side of the equation, the LegalMatch opinion comes at a time when the various groups are pushing for a relaxation of the rules regarding non-lawyer participation in the marketing and delivery of legal services., under the rubric of increasing access to legal services.  It can be expected that those forces will meet this opinion with calls for the amendment or repeal of section 6155, The certification process for legal referral services is cumbersome and only a few legal referral services operating on a for-profit basis have been certified.  I have counseled many lawyers interested in establishing referral services who have abandoned the idea after an exploration of just what is required.

The LegalMatch opinion is certainly timely and any lawyer utilizing such services should be aware of its implications.

 

Court of Appeal Test Drives New Candor Rule

 

 

The First District Court of Appeal, Div. 2, issued a Halloween-eve decision that surely qualifies as some lawyers’ horror story. The decision Davis v. TWC Dealership Group, Inc., case no. A155030, filed 10/30/19, involved arbitration clauses in employment contracts, but it was published to “also affirm—and remind the profession of—the importance of candor toward the court.”

The underlying thicket is a series of employment agreements signed by the Plaintiffs when they began their ultimately unhappy relationship with their employer.  Those agreements purported to bind Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in language the Court described as a “paragon of prolixity,” whose substance is “opaque,” and which has sentences that are “complex, filled with statutory references, and legal jargon.” But the Court of Appeal had some help in reaching its description because the same paragraph had been the subject of a California Supreme Court opinion OTO, L.L.C.v. Kho (2019) 8Cal.5th 111, 128) (Kho).  In fact, the same law firm had argued the Kho case before the Supreme Court. The TWC Court noted no complete version of any of the three fee agreements appeared in the record, and that extensive use of ellipsis was made in the briefing to omit large parts of the contracts.

The Kho decision was filed shortly after the close of briefing in the TWC case but it was not brought to the appellate court’s attention.  In its order, the Court asked the parties to address the impact of Kho but the associate attorney dispatched to argue the case was unprepared.  Neither of the attorneys who signed briefs appeared, having left the firm.

The Court of Appeal found the failure to inform the Court of the Kho decision was an “obvious” violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(2), given that the same law firm had appeared in Kho:

A lawyer shall not …fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel. or knowingly misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, decision or other authority. . . .’ ” ..”

This rule is new in California.  Prior Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 contained a similar prohibition against “intentionally” misquoting to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision but no positive duty to disclose known adverse authority. It also contained the same general prohibition against using means inconsistent with truth or seeking to mislead a judicial officer with ” by an artifice or false statement of fact or law” contained in Business & Professions Code section 6068(d).  The origin of the new rule is Model Rule 3.3.

“Known” is a defined term in the new Rules; Rule 1.0.1(f): “Knowingly,”“known,” or “knows” means actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.”

Since the same law firm argued Kho and the Court of Appeal specifically asked counsel to address Kho (as well as counsel’s failure to bring Kho to the court’s attention) finding knowledge isn’t much of a stretch.  One feels for the firm associate who appeared at the oral argument.

The Court of Appeal finding of lack of candor wasn’t necessary to decide TWC; the law of unconscionability, exemplified by Kho, supplied the necessary rule of decision.  The Court of Appeal also did not refer the matter to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC), despite the “obvious” rule violation.  No sanction was sought or imposed and the conduct does not otherwise meet the statutory reporting requirements of Bus. & Prof. Code section 6086.7.  OCTC will surely see this decision and has the power to open its own investigation.

Whether or not discipline results, the Court of Appeal has given us a significant test drive of one of the new rules, meant to send a message that the duty of candor has some new teeth in California.

Daughter of “Fortune”: Disbarment Recommendation Reduced to 60 Days Actual

A previous post “Reversal of Fortune” discussed the Review Department’s unpublished decision in the Bradshaw matter that reversed a Hearing Judge’s recommendation of disbarment and dismissed the matter, finding no culpability.

Now in a similar case, the Review Department has reversed another Hearing Judge’s disbarment recommendation and recommended discipline to include 60 days actual suspension, now in a published decision (In the Matter of Lingwood, filed August 27, 2019.) The decision is based on an admission and finding that the respondent violated former Rule of Professional Conduct 3-300 (now Rule 1.8.1.)

Both Bradshaw and Lingwood are cases where a lawyer was serving as trustee of a trust.  Both cases involved allegations that the lawyer engaged in self-dealing and misappropriated funds from the trust, acts of moral turpitude, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106.  Both resulted in culpability findings on this issue that were ultimately reversed, based on part of the specfic authorizations in the trust instruments that authorized the trustee to engage in “self dealing” consistent with the trustee’s fiduciary responsibility.  The clause in Bradshaw’s case provided

As long as the Trustee does not act in bad faith or in disregard of the purposes of the Trust, it is not a breach of the Trust for the Trustee to take any of the following actions: ¶ Employ the Trustee, a relative of the Trustee, or a business in which the Trustee has an interest, to perform needed services for the Trust or any business in which the Trust has an interest and pay compensation not exceeding fair market value . . . .

What can explain the blind spot that has now led to two significant reversals?   Part of the answer may lie with the Review Department’s decision in In the Matter of  Schooler (Review Dept. 2016) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.__, 2016 WL 7176690 (filed December 6, 2017.)  Schooler involved a lawyer acting as trustee and conservator of a family trust who committed multiple breaches of fiduciary duty and made misrepresentations to the Court.  Schooler was disbarred after Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) appealed a hearing recommendation of two years actual suspension.

Schooler was, rightly, regarded as an important opinion.  Published opinions in State Bar Court are meant to provide guidance to the litigants. Unfortunately, Schooler appears to have furnished a convenient prism distorting the view of subsequent cases involving attorney as trustee misconduct.  Precedent is a tricky thing in an environment where the correct decision involves a “on a balanced consideration of the unique factors in each case.”  In the Matter of Van Sickle (Review Dept. 2006) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 980, 2006 WL 2465633 (pet. review denied.)

Van Sickle is an echo of the same phenomenon.  The opinion on remand came about because OCTC appealed the first Van Sickle decision to the California Supreme Court because it ran afoul of the bright and shiny toy that OCTC thought it had been given by the Supreme Court, In Re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, which was interpreted as making the discipline Standards as binding law.  The Supreme Court sent Van Sickle back for reconsideration in light of Silverton, and the Review Department met the serve with an well researched opinion demonstrating why Silverton was really just a re-cap of existing law and not the revolutionary decision as hailed. But for awhile Silverton was everywhere being cited as authority that the Standards just had to be complied with.

Guidance is especially hard to come by in the murky land of moral turpitude.  The Lingwood Review Department finds it necessary to remind us that “mere negligence in making a representation does not constitute a violation of section 6106″citing In the Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 335, 353), in concluding that Lingwood’s statements were made with no intent to deceive.  it is a welcome taste of common sense in the face of the elastic concept of “moral turpitude through gross negligence.” (See In Matter of Yee (Review Dept. 2014) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 330, 2014 WL 3748590 (Remke, PJ, dissenting.)

You might argue that the system worked as it should.  Until you consider the costs to the Respondents for fighing it out. Ms. Lingwood, found culpable on the count she admitted to, will pay the State Bar’s costs despite having much of case thrown out.

Reversal of Fortune: Disbarment Becomes Dismissal on Appeal

A recent unpublished but public opinion from the State Bar Court Review Department tells a story unique in most observer’s experience:  a disbarment recommendation from the Hearing Department is completely overturned on appeal and the case is dismissed.

The case is In the Matter of Bradshaw, State Bar Court case no. 16-O-15588, opinion filed July 30, 2019.

Bradshaw created testimentary documents, including a revocable living trust, for his client Ora Gosney in 2006.  After she fell and became incapacitated in August 2013, he became her conservator and spent money from her trust for repairs on her house,  contracting the work to a company he had played some role in setting up.  After he was removed as conservator by the San Francisco Superior Court, the State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel brought discipline charges alleging misrepresentations, a scheme to defraud the trust and misappropriation of money from the trust, all acts of moral turpitude in violation of Business and Professions Code 6106 the amounts paid for the repair work done on Ms. Gosney’s home.  Mr. Bradshaw’s State Bar member page was tagged with a “Consumer Alert” badge when the discipline charges were filed.  After a three week trial, the hearing judge issued her deciscion recommending disbarment and placing Bradshaw in involuntary inactive enrollment on August 30, 2018.

The Review Department reversed, finding that the evidnce for moral turpitude was not clear and convincing, the burden of proof in a disciplinary proceeding.  It noted that Ms. Gosney wanted to keep living at home, that the work was necessary and priced at fair market value.  Moreover, there was no evidence that Bradshaw, while involved in its creation, had an ownership interest, as found by the Hearing Judge.

The dismissal means that Bradshaw will be able to recover some of his out of pocket costs for the long trial and appeal but not his attorney fees.  There will be no compensation for being branded as a consumer threat and for the year of ineligibility to practice law.

The Superior Court decision to remove Bradshaw as conservator undoubtedly loomed large in the decision to prosecute this case and the Hearing Judge’s decision as well.  But civil and criminal courts do get it wrong and cutting through the deference given those decisions in the discipline system takes hard work and the skill of an experienced discipline defense lawyer.  Bradshaw luckily had one and apparently the resources to keep fighting after a bruising trial.  Yes, the system did work as it was supposed to but you can’t help wondering if this trip was really necessary.