In the Matter of Bolden Bruce Kittrell

4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 195 (Review Dept. 2000)

Overview

This case addresses the limits of collateral estoppel in State Bar disciplinary proceedings and the due process rights of attorneys when prior civil judgments are used to establish misconduct. The Review Department reversed significant portions of the hearing judge’s findings after concluding the judge improperly relied on a civil trial record without allowing the attorney a fair opportunity to challenge that evidence.

Facts

In 1991, respondent attorney Bolden Bruce Kittrell accepted $61,000 from a client for investment purposes. The disciplinary charges centered on a $54,000 loan investment secured by a deed of trust on a dance studio property. The loan ultimately defaulted, and the security interest was extinguished by a senior deed of trust, causing the client to lose the entire investment.

The client sued Kittrell in civil court for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found Kittrell liable for both fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and awarded substantial damages. The jury also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kittrell acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.” The final civil judgment exceeded $217,000.

Based on this civil judgment, the State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings. The hearing judge applied collateral estoppel to bind Kittrell not only to the jury’s findings but also to the entire civil record, and prevented him from introducing evidence to contradict or explain that record.

Charges

• Violation of former Rule 3-300 (business transactions with a client)
• Moral turpitude (Bus. & Prof. Code §6106)
• Failure to report civil judgment to State Bar (§6068(o))

Defenses

Improper Use of Collateral Estoppel

Kittrell argued that the hearing judge improperly applied collateral estoppel by binding him to factual findings and evidentiary details from the civil trial without allowing him to contest them. The Review Department agreed that collateral estoppel could apply only to issues actually decided by clear and convincing evidence, not to the entire civil record.

Denial of Due Process

Kittrell argued he was denied a fair hearing because the judge prevented him from presenting exculpatory evidence, fully cross-examining witnesses, and offering mitigation testimony. The Review Department held these restrictions violated procedural fairness requirements.

Judicial Bias Claim

Kittrell also claimed the hearing judge lacked impartiality because disciplinary costs partially fund judicial salaries. The Review Department rejected this argument.

Mitigation Evidence

• Character testimony supporting good reputation
• Extensive legal experience in real estate lending
• Assertions of good faith in business dealings

However, much of Kittrell’s mitigation evidence was excluded by the hearing judge, which the Review Department later held was improper.

Aggravating Factors

• Significant client financial harm
• Jury findings of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
• Failure to report judgment

Key Legal Principles

Limits of Collateral Estoppel

Collateral estoppel applies only to issues actually decided in a prior proceeding under the same burden of proof. It cannot substitute for the State Bar’s obligation to prove disciplinary violations by clear and convincing evidence.

Right to Challenge Civil Record

When relying on prior civil proceedings, attorneys must be given a fair opportunity to contradict, explain, or mitigate adverse evidence.

Moral Turpitude Standard

Fraud, intentional breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct involving malice or oppression constitute moral turpitude as a matter of law.

Disposition

The Review Department:

• Affirmed moral turpitude violation under §6106
• Affirmed failure to report judgment
• Reversed findings on Rule 3-300 violations
• Vacated discipline recommendation
• Remanded for new trial on discipline and aggravation

Sanctions Table