IN THE MATTER OF SULLIVAN (ReviewDept.2010)5 Cal. StateBarCt.Rptr.189

State Bar Defense Attorneys Published Cases IN THE MATTER OF SULLIVAN (ReviewDept.2010)5 Cal. StateBarCt.Rptr.189
0 Comments

In the Matter of Sullivan: Case Summary

Facts:

Attorney Harold Vincent Sullivan II faced disbarment due to a 1999 no-contest plea to conspiracy to obstruct justice (a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude) and his failure to report this charge or conviction to the State Bar. The charges stemmed from a “capping” conspiracy with Faina Bash to gain clients after a payment to MGB Legal.

Sullivan paid Bash in order to be referred to be connected with the Russian community to market his practice in Los Angeles for 5,000 per month.

Procedural History:

The State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings. A hearing judge recommended disbarment based on the moral turpitude conviction and prior disciplinary record. Sullivan appealed to the Review Department. This is a case after other cases in his history.

Sullivan, a prosecutor, was then asked to report the information to the State Bar.

Rules Broken:

  • California Penal Code Section 182(a)(5): Conspiracy to commit any act injurious to public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of laws (the basis of the criminal conviction).
  • State Bar Act: Failing to report both the criminal charges and conviction to the State Bar, per 6068.

Defenses Used:

Sullivan argued that disbarment was too harsh and that the applicable standard (1.7(b)) required a common thread of misconduct, which he argued was absent. Sullivan requested more mitigation credit for his pro bono work, also.

Holding/Punishment:

The Review Department recommended disbarment, agreeing with the hearing judge. They cited his moral turpitude criminal conviction, extensive disciplinary record, and failure to prove compelling mitigation. The Revieew Department noted that standard 3.2 applied in this case, meaning the crime he committed as an attorney, meant that the only sentence was disbarment.

Aggravating Factors:

  • Prior Record of Discipline
  • Lack of Remorse and being unable to demonstrate that a mistake has occurred in the past.
  • A failure to report criminal activity or actions.

Mitigating Factors:

  • Pro-Bono Work (Given only light consideration)
Categories:
In the Matter of Jeffrey Jason Olin (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 166
In the Matter of Jeffrey Jason Olin Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Gregory Daniel Trimarche (Review Dept. 2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 145
In the Matter of Gregory Daniel Trimarche Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Rossana Pilar Mitchell (Review Dept. 2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 135
In the Matter of Rossana Pilar Mitchell Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent EE (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 127
In the Matter of Respondent EE Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of Linda Darlene Lucero (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 101
In the Matter of Linda Darlene Lucero Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent DD (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 90
In the Matter of Respondent DD Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of Anthony Aanand Patel (Review Dept. 2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 84
In the Matter of Anthony Aanand Patel Review Department (2024) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Elana Thibault (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 64
In the Matter of Elana Thibault Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.
In the Matter of George Martin Derieg (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 46
In the Matter of George Martin Derieg Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct.
In the Matter of Respondent CC (Review Dept. 2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 36
In the Matter of Respondent CC Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr.