In the Matter of Regan
Citation: In the Matter of James Carlisle Regan (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 844
Overview
Attorney James Carlisle Regan was disciplined after pursuing an appeal on behalf of two clients who had expressly instructed him to stop. The Review Department affirmed findings that he appeared without authority, failed to communicate, failed to return the client file, and made misleading representations to the Court of Appeal regarding his clients’ wishes.
Key Facts
Regan represented two clients in a civil action against the City of Burbank and others. After the trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion and later awarded substantial attorney’s fees against the clients (and Regan), the clients told Regan they did not want to pursue an appeal.
Despite written instructions to stop, Regan filed a notice of appeal, multiple extension requests, and ultimately an opening appellate brief. He continued filing motions even after being formally discharged. In filings to the Court of Appeal, Regan represented that his clients still wished to pursue the appeal and suggested they were mentally incapable of making decisions.
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the clients’ appeals. The State Bar thereafter charged Regan with multiple violations.
Charges and Violations
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 6104 – Appearing without authority
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m) – Failure to communicate
- Rule 3-700(D)(1) – Failure to return client file
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d) – Misleading the court
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 – Moral turpitude (deceit)
Aggravating Factors
- Multiple acts of misconduct
- Disparaging remarks about clients
- Harm and stress caused to clients
- Indifference toward rectification
Mitigation
- No prior discipline in 17 years of practice
Simplified Sanctions
| Discipline | Duration |
|---|---|
| Stayed Suspension | 2 Years |
| Probation | 2 Years |
| Actual Suspension | 75 Days |
| Rule 955 Compliance | Required |
| Costs | Imposed |
Why This Case Matters
This case reinforces that the decision to appeal belongs to the client — not the attorney. Even if counsel believes an appeal is in the client’s best interest, express instructions to stop must be honored.
The case also highlights how misleading statements to a court — even when motivated by a claimed belief that one is helping a client — can constitute moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code section 6106.
Facing a State Bar Investigation?
If you are accused of appearing without authority, misleading a court, or violating your duties to a client, early intervention is critical. Contact East Bay Law P.C. for experienced defense in California State Bar proceedings.