Overview

This probation revocation proceeding addressed whether attorney Robert Aaron Gorman willfully violated two conditions of his disciplinary probation: (1) timely completion of restitution and (2) timely attendance at State Bar Ethics School.

Although the hearing judge recommended two years’ stayed suspension with no actual suspension, the Review Department concluded that actual suspension was warranted. The court imposed a 30-day period of actual suspension as a condition of continued probation.

Underlying Discipline

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1995. His prior discipline arose from trust account violations, including failure to properly maintain client funds. A $620 trust account check issued to a medical provider was dishonored.

The Supreme Court imposed:

• One-year stayed suspension
• Two years’ probation
• Restitution of $620 plus 10% interest
• Completion of Ethics School
• Passing the Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)

Probation Violations

Failure to Timely Pay Restitution

Restitution was due April 7, 2001. Respondent paid the $620 principal in June 2001 but failed to pay the required interest until January 7, 2002 — approximately nine months late.

The record showed repeated reminders and intervention by the State Bar’s Probation Unit before full payment was completed.

Failure to Timely Complete Ethics School

Ethics School was required to be completed by January 7, 2002. Respondent completed it February 21, 2002, approximately six weeks late.

Aggravating Factors

• Prior record of discipline (trust account violations)
• Repeated State Bar intervention required to secure restitution compliance
• Late payment of even the principal amount
• Improper listing of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office in the caption of pleadings when that office had no role in the matter

Mitigating Factors

• Participation in proceedings and stipulation to facts
• Expression of remorse
• Death of respondent’s father following prolonged illness
• Financial pressures and disciplinary cost obligations
• Timely passage of the MPRE
• Timely filing of quarterly probation reports

The Review Department gave mitigation some weight, but concluded it did not outweigh the seriousness of the restitution violation.

Legal Analysis

The court emphasized that willfulness in probation violations does not require bad intent. Failure to timely comply with significant probation conditions — particularly restitution — supports actual suspension absent compelling mitigating circumstances.

Restitution is central to rehabilitation because it forces attorneys to confront the consequences of misconduct. Where prior discipline involved trust account violations, failure to timely pay restitution is closely tied to the underlying misconduct and to the attorney’s rehabilitation.

The court also reiterated that potential employment consequences do not excuse discipline otherwise warranted.

Discipline Summary