In the Matter of Jeffrey Jason Olin

Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 166

Overview

This published decision addresses attorney discipline arising from repeated abusive, harassing, and threatening communications directed at judicial officers during ongoing family law and related criminal proceedings.

The Review Department affirmed findings that Olin:

• Twice failed to maintain respect due to courts (§ 6068(b))
• Committed moral turpitude (§ 6106) by sending a credible threat of violence

The court increased discipline from a recommended 90-day suspension to nine months of actual suspension.

Charges

Failure to Maintain Respect Due to the Courts (§ 6068(b))

• Email to Judge Powell falsely implying bribery
• Email accusing Judge Gilbertson of lying about reading pleadings

Moral Turpitude (§ 6106)

• Email to Commissioner Veasey stating: “If I ever won the lottery, I would pay someone to kill [her minor child].”

Factual Background

Olin’s misconduct arose from contentious post-dissolution custody litigation. After adverse rulings, including issuance of a five-year restraining order, Olin began sending hostile emails to multiple judicial officers.

His communications included:

• Accusing a judge of being bribed by his ex-wife’s boyfriend
• Calling judges “corrupt,” “evil,” and “incompetent”
• Referring to judicial officers using vulgar and misogynistic language
• Threatening to pay someone to kill a commissioner’s minor child

The threat prompted a workplace violence restraining order, police patrol of the commissioner’s residence, and superior court findings of credible threats.

Respondent’s Defenses

1. First Amendment Protection

Olin argued that his statements were constitutionally protected opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or non-public speech.

The court rejected this argument where statements:

• Implied provably false facts (bribery, lying)
• Were made in reckless disregard of the truth
• Constituted credible threats of violence

2. “Questions” Are Not Assertions

Olin claimed phrasing accusations as questions (“How much is he paying you?”) shielded him from discipline.

The court held that a question implying a false factual assertion can still be defamatory and disciplinable.

3. Conditional Threat Defense

Olin argued the lottery condition negated the threat. The court rejected this, finding conditional threats can still create credible fear.

Judicial Reasoning

False Accusations Against Judges

The court applied Ramirez v. State Bar and Standing Committee v. Yagman, holding that knowingly false statements or statements made with reckless disregard for truth are not protected.

Olin conducted no investigation before accusing Judge Powell of bribery. The accusation was baseless conjecture following an adverse ruling.

Threat Constituted Moral Turpitude

Relying on In the Matter of Elkins, the court applied a commonsense analysis.

Given Olin’s history of escalating hostility, the statement about paying someone to kill the commissioner’s child constituted a credible threat.

The superior court’s finding of “clear and convincing evidence of credible threats of violence” was given strong weight.

Aggravation

The court emphasized Olin’s continued hostility, blame-shifting, and lack of remorse, raising concern about future misconduct.

Mitigation

Sanctions

Why This Published Decision Is Significant

• Clarifies limits of First Amendment protection in attorney discipline.
• Reaffirms that non-public false accusations are still sanctionable.
• Establishes that conditional threats can constitute moral turpitude.
• Signals heightened discipline for harassment of judicial officers.
• Reflects evolving professional norms emphasizing civility and safety.

The opinion marks a shift toward stronger sanctions where attorney speech crosses into intimidation or credible threats.

Key Takeaways for Attorneys

• Anger at adverse rulings does not justify reckless factual accusations.
• Framing a false claim as a “question” offers no protection.
• Threatening language—even conditional—can constitute moral turpitude.
• Lack of remorse substantially increases discipline.
• Professional civility standards are increasingly enforced.