Discipline Defense

Don’t face the State Bar alone

Let me use my 36 years of experience to help you reach the best possible outcome.
When a complaint is made against you, you have the right to seek an experienced attorney who can help you overcome your disciplinary problems.

I have over 36 years of experience with the discipline system of The State Bar of California, including 12 years working at The State Bar as a staff attorney, discipline prosecutor and discipline manager, and 24 years of representing respondent attorneys in the discipline system.

I provide representation in all phases of the process, from initial inquiry through investigation, formal proceedings in The State Bar Court, including hearing, appeal to the Review Department and appeal to the California Supreme Court.

How the Discipline System Works

Duty to Cooperate

You have a statutory duty to cooperate in the investigation (Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(i)). The statute also provides that the duty to cooperate shall not be construed to deprive an attorney of all statutory and constitutional privileges (Bus. & Prof. Code section 6085). The Office of Chief Trial Counsel often asks for voluminous documentation as part of its investigation. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials can have civil and criminal as well as disciplinary consequences.

Most State Bar complaints are resolved with no action at the investigation stage, but consultation with experienced bar counsel can avoid expensive problems later. An attorney involved in the discipline process at any stage will benefit from the counsel and, if necessary, representation.

Complaints

The discipline system is largely driven by complaints. Those complaints may come from anyone; there is no standing requirement for filing a State Bar complaint. Complaints are not the exclusive source for information that can lead to the opening of an inquiry or investigation. The State Bar can also open its own investigations from information received through so-called “reportable actions” (Bus. & Prof. Code §§6068(o), 6086.7, 6086.8, 6091.1) or from information gleaned from the news media.
When an attorney is charged with a crime or convicted of one, that information is also reported to The State Bar (Bus. & Prof. Code §§6101, 6102). Most State Bar proceedings, though, begin as a complaint from a client.
The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of The State Bar of California (OCTC) is the agency responsible for investigating attorney misconduct and prosecuting attorney disciplinary proceedings. OCTC is divided into two main offices, the Office of Intake and the Office of Enforcement.

The Intake Stage

The Office of Intake, as the name indicates, takes in all information regarding attorney misconduct. Nonattorney complaint analysts work under the supervision of State Bar prosecutors, designated as deputy trial counsel. The complaint analysts answer The State Bar toll-free complaint hotline number (800-843-9053), receive information and send out complaint forms. Other complaint analysts in Intake monitor reportable actions and criminal convictions.
When a matter is deemed serious enough to consider as a potential disciplinary matter, it is designated as an “Inquiry” and given an Inquiry case number. A total of 16,024 cases of all types—Inquiries, reportable actions and other matters—were opened in 2014 (State Bar 2014 Annual Discipline Report). The primary mission of the Office of Intake is to answer the question: If the facts as stated in this matter are true, is there a potential violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or The State Bar Act?
If the answer is no, the matter is typically closed at the Intake level, although some types of minor misconduct can be resolved at this level through a warning letter or an agreement in lieu of discipline (ALD). The Office of Intake will not typically contact the respondent-attorney at the inquiry stage, but may if it is having trouble understanding the complaint or the misconduct is regarded as minor.
If the answer is yes, the matter is typically forwarded to the Office of Enforcement for investigation and prosecution if warranted. In 2014, 3,791 were forwarded to Enforcement.

The Investigation Stage

The Office of Enforcement is configured into several teams consisting of investigators and State Bar lawyers who supervise the investigators and try cases in The State Bar Court, designated deputy trial counsel. The investigators gather information about the alleged misconduct. Typically, one of their first moves is to write to the respondent-attorney seeking information and documents. Respondents have an obligation to cooperate in the State Bar’s investigation, but also have the right to assert constitutional and statutory privileges to disclosing information (Bus. & Prof. Code §§6068(i), 6085). The State Bar has the right to subpoena documents and to conduct depositions at the investigation stage.

Formal Discipline Proceedings

If the investigators gather sufficient evidence to indicate that The State Bar could meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent-attorney will be sent a letter titled “Notice of Intent to File Discipline Charges” and called a “10-day letter” because it invites the respondent to file in The State Bar Court for an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (ENEC) within 10 days. In 2014, the Enforcement Unit in OCTC completed 3,648 investigations and filed formal charges in 1,008 cases.

The State Bar Court

The State Bar Court is a specialized court where discipline matters and other State Bar matters are adjudicated. This is a real court with real full-time judges who hear discipline, reinstatement and admissions cases. Proceedings in The State Bar Court are governed by the State Bar Rules of Procedure, not the Code of Civil Procedure or the Penal Code.

Prefiling Settlement Conference (PSC)

The prefiling settlement conference (formerly known as the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference) is an opportunity to resolve a discipline matter before charges are filed in State Bar Court and the matter becomes public. Each side is required to submit a PSC Statement before the conference to guide the court. The settlement judge will attempt to broker a settlement but is also charged with giving the parties an evaluation of the case. The PSC can be valuable for learning how The State Bar Court will view your position even if it does not result in a settlement.

Litigation in The State Bar Court

If the PSC is not successful, OCTC will initiate a discipline proceeding by filing a notice of discipline charges (NDC) in The State Bar Court and serving it on the respondent at his or her membership records address. The process is similar to civil procedure but different in key aspects. The formal rules of evidence do not apply; discovery is limited to a document and witness exchange unless approved by the hearing judge. Once the NDC is filed, it must be responded to within 20 days. Failure to do so will result in a default and the charges being deemed admitted. Defaults are difficult to vacate, especially more than 45 days after they are entered.

Trial

By rule, trial in a discipline matter must occur within 125 days from the date the notice of discipline charges is filed. Trials are conducted by the five judges who sit in The State Bar Court hearing department, two in San Francisco and three in Los Angeles. A settlement conference is held in most matters litigated in State Bar Court and most cases are settled before trial. Once the case is submitted, a decision is due within 90 days.

Recommendation to California Supreme Court

Decisions other than reprovals are couched as recommendations to the California Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has a limited grant of authority from the Supreme Court to impose reprovals. Any greater degree of discipline, suspension or disbarment must be ordered by the Supreme Court. Recommendations for discipline from The State Bar Court are usually adopted by the California Supreme Court within four to five months unless The State Bar or the respondent seeks review in the review department of The State Bar Court, though, in rare instances, the Supreme Court has granted review on its own motion.

Appeal

The Review Department consists of one full-time judge, who is also presiding judge of The State Bar Court and two part-time judges. The Review Department issues written opinions, some of which are citeable as binding precedent in The State Bar Court. Seeking review in the Review Department is necessary for filing a petition for review of a disciplinary matter with the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court seldom grants review.

Legal Ethics Advice

Why Legal Ethics Advice Matters

Most lawyers think they have a good grasp of legal ethics and never think to seek ethics advice. They might have taken a professional responsibility course in law school and passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) when admitted. But the law of lawyering is expanding, changing at a rapid pace, and the understanding of legal ethics that they had in law school is outdated. Lawyers are required to take only a few hours of courses in legal ethics every three years, and there are many traps for the unwary in this constantly changing landscape.
You can consult with David C. Carr for legal ethics advice that you can depend on to get through your legal needs.

Timely Ethics Advice Can Prevent Huge Problems Later

Timely ethics advice can avoid huge problems down the road; an hour now can save many hours of work later when damage control is needed. Ethics advice topics are almost unlimited, but often involve:

  • Conflicts
  • Conflict waivers
  • Fee agreements
  • Fee disputes
  • Attorney advertising and marketing
  • Compliance review of advertising material
  • Entity formation and law corporation rules
  • Ethical compensation arrangements with lawyers
  • Ethical compensation arrangements with nonlawyers
  • Termination of representation issues
  • Client trust accounting issues
  • Unauthorized practice of law issues
  • Multijurisdictional practice issues
  • Ethical law office management

I provide legal advice in all of these areas and more. That advice is informed by more than 36 years of experience exclusively in legal ethics and State Bar discipline, including 12 years as a staff attorney, discipline prosecutor and manager for The State Bar of California.

There is an interrelationship between ethics, law and risk management. Lawyers tend to be risk-averse, but different people have different appetites for risk. The goal is to make sure no risk is undertaken without the best possible understanding of it. My goal is to be a counselor to the lawyer in the best tradition of California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 2.1, a source of candid independent advice designed to help you avoid trouble.

Sometimes, experienced legal guidance can make all the difference in the outcome of ethics issue. I take the time to understand the needs of my clients before offering guidance that they can depend on.

California Admissions

Avoid Mistakes That Can Delay or Jeopardize Your California Admission

Avoid mistakes that can delay or jeopardize your California admission. I have the knowledge and dedication to help you.

The Moral Character Requirement for Admission

California Business and Professions Code §6060 requires that every applicant for admission to The State Bar of California possess good moral character.

The Moral Character Evaluation Process

Law students are sometimes surprised at the extensive disclosures required when they complete the Committee of Bar Examiners application for determination of moral character. Absolute candor in supplying information to the committee is essential. The extent of disclosure by the applicant of all relevant facts and the applicant’s attitude toward the admissions process can be an important factor. If there is any negative information in an applicant’s background, he or she should seek advice about filling out the moral character application and about presenting his or her side of the story.

The Informal Conference

When the Committee of Bar Examiners has questions regarding the showing of good moral character presented in the written application and subsequent communication, it will often invite the applicant to what it calls an “informal conference” to discuss facts stated in the application and gain an overall impression of the applicant. The term “informal conference” does not convey the importance of this interview. The questioning of the applicant can often be brisk. Preparation for the informal conference is absolutely essential.

Petitioning for Review in State Bar Court

If the committee decides not to approve an applicant on moral character grounds, that decision can be reviewed by petitioning The State Bar Court. Such a petition is not to be undertaken lightly; the applicant has the burden of proof in this proceeding and it will be vigorously contested by lawyers from The State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel in State Bar Court, often through the hearing and review stages and even in the California Supreme Court. An applicant has a limited time to appeal the denial of moral character application to The State Bar Court. A final negative determination cuts off any new application for two years.