In the Matter of Bolden Bruce Kittrell
(Review Dept. 2003) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 615

Filed: November 18, 2003
Disposition: Five-year stayed suspension, five-year probation, three-year actual suspension

Overview

The Review Department upheld findings that attorney Bolden Bruce Kittrell violated former Rule 3-300 by entering into an unfair business transaction with a client, committed acts of moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106, and failed to report a civil fraud judgment to the State Bar under §6068(o)(2).

Although the hearing judge recommended disbarment, the Review Department imposed a five-year stayed suspension with three years of actual suspension, restitution, and proof of rehabilitation.

Facts

In 1991, respondent induced a 55-year-old unsophisticated client, Czarine Hope James, to invest $61,000 of her life savings in a third trust deed on distressed commercial property known as Moro Landis Studios.

The client sought safe investment of funds she intended to use to purchase a condominium. Respondent represented that the investment would pay 14% interest, included monthly payments, and that her principal would be returned within three to four months. He assured her she “could not lose money.”

In reality:

• The property was heavily over-encumbered (nearly $1.5 million in debt).
• Debt service exceeded rental income.
• The property had default history.
• Respondent had no current appraisal.
• The client’s investment was in a third trust deed — highly subordinate.

Respondent failed to:

• Provide written disclosure of material terms and risks;
• Advise the client in writing to seek independent counsel;
• Disclose his financial interest and control of the entity receiving funds;
• Accurately state the note amount or maturity date.

The client lost her investment, suffered multiple failed home escrows, incurred additional costs, and experienced significant emotional and financial harm. A jury awarded her over $217,000 in compensatory damages and $61,000 in punitive damages for fraud.

Respondent failed to timely report this fraud judgment to the State Bar.

Charges and Violations

• Rule 3-300(A): Entering into a business transaction not fair and reasonable to client.
• Rule 3-300(B): Failure to advise client in writing to seek independent counsel.
• Business & Professions Code §6106: Moral turpitude (concealment and overreaching).
• Business & Professions Code §6068(o)(2): Failure to report civil fraud judgment.

Defenses Raised

Respondent argued procedural unfairness and challenged sufficiency of evidence. He also attempted to relitigate collateral estoppel issues previously resolved.

The Review Department rejected these arguments, holding:

• Collateral estoppel findings were final;
• Respondent had opportunity to present evidence but declined;
• Evidence clearly and convincingly established violations.

Aggravating Factors

• Multiple acts of misconduct;
• Significant financial harm to client;
• Dishonesty and concealment;
• Indifference to restitution;
• Lack of remorse and insight;
• Failure to reimburse Client Security Fund.

Mitigation

• Admitted to practice since 1967;
• No prior discipline;
• Community service activities;
• Some character testimony (given limited weight).

Discipline Summary

Probation Conditions

• Three years actual suspension;
• Restitution to Client Security Fund ($31,000 + interest);
• Restitution to client ($221,516.41 + interest);
• Proof of rehabilitation (Standard 1.4(c)(ii));
• Pass MPRE;
• Complete Ethics School;
• Quarterly reporting to Office of Probation;
• Compliance with Rule 955 (now Rule 9.20).

Why This Case Matters

Kittrell reinforces that business transactions with clients are heavily scrutinized and that failure to strictly comply with Rule 3-300 can result in severe discipline — especially when accompanied by dishonesty or concealment.

The case also illustrates that moral turpitude findings significantly elevate discipline beyond standard rule violations.