In the Matter of Thomas Neil Thomson
Review Department (2006) – Disbarment for repeated violations of court orders, failure to report sanctions, and unauthorized practice of law.
Overview
Thomas Neil Thomson, admitted in 1971, was disciplined for violating bankruptcy court injunctions, failing to report judicial sanctions, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended, and violating probation conditions. This was his fifth disciplinary proceeding. The Review Department concluded that the pattern of repetitive misconduct required disbarment.
Factual Background
1. Bankruptcy Injunction Violations (Lamanna Matter)
- Bankruptcy court issued preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting litigation relating to specific real property.
- Thomson, attorney for the debtor and related corporation, filed a quiet title action and recorded a lis pendens despite the injunctions.
- The bankruptcy court held Thomson in contempt and imposed $46,359.72 in sanctions.
- He failed to report the sanctions to the State Bar.
Federal courts (Bankruptcy Court, Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit) affirmed that Thomson had actual knowledge of the injunctions and was bound as an attorney and agent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
2. Unauthorized Practice of Law While Suspended (Zafran & PESH’A Matters)
- Supreme Court suspended Thomson for non-payment of dues.
- While suspended, he sent demand letters and negotiated settlements on attorney letterhead.
- Negotiation of claims constitutes the practice of law.
- Filing a motion to stay suspension did not authorize practice.
Violations Found
| Statute / Rule | Violation |
|---|---|
| § 6103 | Willful disobedience of court orders (injunction violations) |
| § 6068(o)(3) | Failure to report judicial sanctions |
| §§ 6125 & 6126 | Unauthorized practice of law |
| § 6068(a) | Failure to support the laws of the State |
| § 6068(k) | Failure to comply with probation (duplicative; no added weight) |
Aggravation
- Four prior disciplinary matters
- Repeated failure to report sanctions
- Prior unauthorized practice of law
- Bad faith, dishonesty, and concealment
- Indifference to rectification and acknowledgment of wrongdoing
Mitigation
None credited. Claims of good faith were rejected because they were not reasonable. Repeated rationalizations demonstrated lack of insight.
Discipline Analysis
Under Standard 1.7(b), disbarment is appropriate where an attorney has two or more prior disciplinary matters unless compelling mitigation clearly predominates.
The Review Department emphasized that Thomson’s misconduct reflected:
- A continuous pattern of disregarding court orders
- Repeat unauthorized practice violations
- Failure to learn from prior discipline
Outcome
| Discipline | Disbarment |
|---|---|
| Inactive Enrollment | Ordered pending Supreme Court action |
| Costs | State Bar costs awarded |
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys are bound by injunctions under FRCP 65(d), even if not specifically named.
- Negotiating claims while suspended constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
- Failure to report sanctions is a serious aggravating factor, especially if repeated.
- Under Standard 1.7(b), repeated discipline often results in disbarment.
East Bay Law P.C. represents attorneys in California State Bar investigations and disciplinary proceedings.
Contact East Bay Law P.C.