Overview

This reinstatement proceeding arose after Gregory Scott Bodell resigned from the State Bar of California in 1990 with disciplinary charges pending following a federal felony conviction for mail fraud. The misconduct stemmed from his involvement in a coordinated insurance fraud scheme known as “the Alliance,” a group of approximately fifteen defense attorneys in the Los Angeles area.

After nearly ten years outside the practice of law, Bodell petitioned for reinstatement. The Review Department granted reinstatement, concluding that he met the exceptionally high burden of proving rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and sustained exemplary conduct.

Facts

Between 1985 and 1989, Bodell participated in “the Alliance,” a group of insurance defense attorneys who coordinated fraudulent billing practices against insurance carriers. The scheme included:

• Conducting unnecessary discovery and litigation to inflate billings
• Excessive and duplicative legal billing
• Creating the false appearance of independent “Cumis counsel” representation
• Submitting bills to insurers for sham independent counsel

Although Bodell was not found to be the mastermind of the operation, the court concluded he was a principal participant and closely associated with the scheme’s central figure, attorney Lynn Stites.

In 1988, Bodell admitted he attempted to frustrate investigation into the Alliance by transmitting computer media containing pleadings and documents. In May 1990, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341.

He was sentenced to five years of probation and 150 days in a halfway house. He resigned from the State Bar effective August 24, 1990.

Criminal and Disciplinary Consequences

The conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. Although Bodell resigned with charges pending rather than being disbarred, the reinstatement standard applied was identical to that of a disbarred attorney.

Rehabilitation Evidence

The Review Department emphasized that reinstatement requires clear and convincing proof of:

• Learning in the law
• Passing the Professional Responsibility Examination
• Rehabilitation and present moral fitness

Cooperation With Authorities

Bodell cooperated extensively with federal prosecutors and State Bar investigators, including assisting in the arrest and prosecution of other Alliance members. A State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel testified that his cooperation was candid, detailed, and critical.

Character Witnesses

Eleven witnesses testified on his behalf, including:

• A former Assistant U.S. Attorney
• A Deputy District Attorney
• A senior State Bar trial counsel
• His supervising law firm employer

These witnesses testified to his remorse, candor, leadership in church activities, mentoring of law students regarding ethical failures, and strong ethical influence within his law office despite serving only as a law clerk.

Tax Delinquencies

The State Bar challenged Bodell’s approximately $458,000 federal tax delinquency. The court found no moral turpitude in the debt because:

• He did not conceal assets
• He filed tax returns
• The majority of the debt consisted of penalties and interest
• He entered a payment plan and proposed an IRS compromise

Opposing Evidence

Five attorneys testified against reinstatement, primarily arguing that the original misconduct was so egregious that rehabilitation should be impossible. The Review Department gave little weight to this testimony because the witnesses had not observed Bodell’s conduct during the ten-year period following his resignation.

Holding

The Review Department concluded that Bodell demonstrated sustained exemplary conduct, insight into his wrongdoing, sincere remorse, and significant ethical growth. His rehabilitation outweighed the seriousness of his prior misconduct.

Detailed Sanctions & Procedural Table

Key Takeaways for Attorneys Facing Reinstatement

• Reinstatement after felony misconduct requires an extraordinary showing of rehabilitation.
• Cooperation with authorities can significantly impact credibility.
• Negative testimony based solely on past misconduct carries limited weight.
• Financial distress alone does not establish lack of moral character if there is transparency and compliance.
• Sustained exemplary conduct over many years is critical.