Overview

This case addresses a petition for relief from actual suspension under former Standard 1.4(c)(ii) of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct. After serving a two-year actual suspension, attorney Glenn Matthew Terrones was required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, his rehabilitation, present fitness to practice, and present learning and ability in the general law.

The Hearing Department granted relief. The State Bar sought review, arguing Terrones failed to meet his burden. The Review Department affirmed.

Underlying Misconduct (Prior Discipline)

Terrones was admitted in 1983. His prior discipline stemmed from serious trust account violations in the early 1990s.

Client Settlement Misconduct

• Improperly endorsed co-counsel’s name on a $9,000 settlement check
• Failed to promptly pay a medical lienholder
• Allowed trust account balance to fall below required amounts

$25,000 Medical Pay Draft

• Failed to notify client of receipt of $25,000 insurance draft
• Deposited funds into trust account
• Trust balance dropped significantly below required levels
• Client was unaware of funds until much later

He stipulated to violations including moral turpitude (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106), failure to notify a client of receipt of funds (Rule 4-100(B)(1)), and failure to cooperate with State Bar investigations (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(i)).

The Supreme Court imposed a five-year stayed suspension, with two years of actual suspension and a Standard 1.4(c)(ii) condition requiring proof of rehabilitation before reinstatement.

Petition for Relief Under Standard 1.4(c)(ii)

Proceedings under Standard 1.4(c)(ii) are expedited and summary in nature. The burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence — lower than the clear and convincing standard applicable to reinstatement after disbarment.

Terrones was required to prove:

• Rehabilitation
• Present fitness to practice
• Present learning and ability in the general law

Evidence of Rehabilitation

Substance Abuse Recovery

A critical development was the revelation that Terrones suffered from cocaine and alcohol addiction during the period of misconduct. This had not been presented at the time of his original discipline.

• Sober since November 21, 1996
• Active participant in Cocaine Anonymous
• Leadership roles within recovery community
• Psychiatric expert testimony confirming sustained rehabilitation

Religious and Community Involvement

• Active church member
• Elected president of his congregation
• Open disclosure of prior misconduct to church members

Professional Development

• Completed 100+ hours of insurance-related coursework
• 200+ hours studying estate planning and taxation
• Litigated personal bankruptcy and custody matters
• Two attorney witnesses testified to his legal competence

State Bar’s Opposition

The State Bar challenged rehabilitation based on:

• An allegedly incomplete insurance license application
• Client Security Fund payment of $3,445.67 to a former client
• Outstanding tax liens (largely resolved)
• Use of “Esq.” during suspension

The Review Department concluded that the evidence supported the hearing judge’s findings and that none of these issues constituted an abuse of discretion.

Defenses and Explanations

Terrones argued:

• His addiction causally contributed to the misconduct
• He was previously in denial about substance abuse
• He made full disclosures to employer and church
• Any insurance application deficiency was not intentional
• Client Security Fund claim was unknown to him

The court accepted addiction as an explanation — not an excuse — and found sustained rehabilitation.

Aggravation (Original Case)

• Multiple acts of misconduct
• Moral turpitude
• Trust account violations
• Failure to cooperate with investigation

Mitigation

• No prior discipline before misconduct period
• Sustained sobriety
• Extensive community involvement
• Open acknowledgment of wrongdoing
• Expert psychiatric support

Holding

The Review Department found no abuse of discretion or error of law and affirmed the hearing judge’s decision granting relief from actual suspension.

Sanctions Table

Practical Takeaway

Terrones demonstrates that relief from actual suspension is achievable when an attorney presents credible, sustained evidence of rehabilitation — particularly where substance abuse causally contributed to misconduct. However, the burden remains significant, and the State Bar will scrutinize candor, financial responsibility, and professional development.