In the Matter of Respondent CC
Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 36
Overview
This case addresses eligibility for the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP). The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) sought interlocutory review, arguing Respondent CC was ineligible under Rules of Procedure 5.382(C)(1) and 5.382(C)(3).
The Review Department independently reviewed the record and held that Respondent CC’s misconduct, while serious and extensive, did not require disbarment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Hearing Department’s order admitting respondent into the ADP.
Key Legal Issue
Rule 5.382(C)(1)
An attorney is ineligible for ADP if the stipulation “shows that the attorney’s disbarment is warranted, despite mitigating circumstances.”
The court interpreted “is warranted” to mean disbarment is required or inevitable, not merely that disbarment is possible or substantially likely. Only attorneys who would necessarily be disbarred are barred from ADP participation.
Rule 5.382(C)(3)
An attorney is also ineligible if current misconduct involving moral turpitude resulted in significant harm to a client or the administration of justice.
Although Respondent CC stipulated to a violation of Business & Professions Code § 6106 (false statements), the stipulation did not establish “significant harm.” Therefore, subdivision (C)(3) did not apply.
Stipulated Misconduct
Prior Discipline (CC I & CC II)
- 31 immigration client matters involving incompetence and abandonment
- Failure to comply with court orders
- Failure to refund fees
- Unauthorized practice-related violations
- Probation violations
Despite significant aggravation (pattern of misconduct, vulnerable victims, harm), the Supreme Court previously imposed lengthy suspension rather than disbarment.
Current Matter (CC III)
- Three immigration matters (2017)
- Two criminal defense matters (2020–2021)
- Two probation violations
- Failure to inform clients of suspension
- Failure to perform competently
- Failure to respond to State Bar inquiries
- One act of moral turpitude (false statements to employee)
Substance Abuse Nexus
Respondent entered the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP). The Program Judge found a nexus between respondent’s alcohol/cocaine abuse and the misconduct, satisfying Rule 5.382(A)(3).
The Legislature’s intent under Business & Professions Code § 6230 supports rehabilitation of impaired attorneys where public protection can be maintained.
Why Disbarment Was Not Required
OCTC cited several disbarment cases, including Twohy, Kaplan, Lenard, Dixon, and Berg. The Review Department distinguished those cases, noting:
- More serious acts of moral turpitude were present in those cases.
- Greater dishonesty and fiduciary breaches existed there.
- Respondent’s misconduct, though extensive, did not mandate disbarment.
The court emphasized that disciplinary standards determine sanction — but ADP eligibility is a separate inquiry.
Holding
| Issue | Result |
|---|---|
| Rule 5.382(C)(1) | Disbarment not required → Eligible |
| Rule 5.382(C)(3) | No significant harm shown → Eligible |
| Disposition | Order accepting respondent into ADP affirmed |
Key Takeaways
- “Disbarment is warranted” means disbarment is required, not merely possible.
- ADP is intended to rehabilitate attorneys with substance abuse or mental health impairments.
- Disciplinary standards do not automatically control ADP eligibility.
- Failure to complete ADP can still result in disbarment.
East Bay Law P.C. represents attorneys in State Bar Court proceedings, including ADP eligibility disputes, probation violations, and disciplinary defense.
Contact East Bay Law P.C.