In the Matter of Jebbia (Review Dept. 1999)
In the Matter of Jebbia (Review Dept. 1999) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 51
The Review Department held that the 1997 amendments to the summary disbarment statute could not be applied retroactively to criminal acts committed before the amendments’ effective date, even where the attorney’s conviction occurred afterward.
Facts
Dennis A. Jebbia was admitted to the California bar in 1981. Between 1992 and 1995, he knowingly made false statements to federally insured lenders in order to secure real estate loans. In 1998, he pleaded guilty to seven felony counts of violating federal law prohibiting false statements to financial institutions.
Following his conviction, the State Bar sought summary disbarment under amendments to Business and Professions Code section 6102(c), effective January 1, 1997. Those amendments greatly expanded the types of crimes eligible for automatic disbarment.
Jebbia argued that applying the amended law would be improper because his criminal acts occurred before the statute’s effective date.
Legal Issue
Whether amendments to the summary disbarment statute may be applied to conduct occurring before the amendments took effect when the conviction itself occurs later.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a statute is retroactive when it changes the legal consequences of actions completed before its enactment. Under prior law, summary disbarment required that the crime occur in the practice of law or involve a client victim. The 1997 amendments eliminated those limitations and made any felony involving moral turpitude eligible for summary disbarment.
The court determined that the critical event for retroactivity analysis is the attorney’s underlying misconduct—not the date of conviction. Because Jebbia’s conduct occurred before January 1, 1997, applying the amended statute would impose new and harsher consequences on past behavior.
The Review Department also rejected arguments that the amendments were merely procedural or clarifying. Instead, they significantly broadened the law’s reach and removed an attorney’s opportunity to present mitigation evidence in a full disciplinary hearing.
Holding
The Review Department held that applying the amended summary disbarment statute would constitute an impermissible retroactive application of the law.
Sanctions Table
| Issue | Conduct | Authority | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Felony Convictions | False statements to lenders | 18 U.S.C. §1014 | Moral turpitude established |
| Summary Disbarment | Application of amended statute | Bus. & Prof. Code §6102(c) | Denied |
| Retroactivity | Applying law to pre-1997 conduct | Retroactivity doctrine | Impermissible |
Outcome
The Review Department denied the State Bar’s request for summary disbarment and referred the matter to the Hearing Department for a full disciplinary hearing to determine the appropriate level of discipline.