In the Matter of Arthur Gootkin Lawrence (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 239

Court: State Bar Court, Review Department

Filed: March 12, 2013 (as modified April 5, 2013)

Judge: Presiding Judge Remke, with Judges Epstein and Purcell concurring

Overview

Attorney Arthur Gootkin Lawrence, admitted to practice in 1959, faced his fourth disciplinary proceeding. He was charged with four counts of misconduct in three matters, including moral turpitude, failure to maintain client funds in trust, and failure to comply with probation conditions from prior discipline. Despite his history of serious health problems—including trigeminal neuralgia and a traumatic brain injury—the Review Department imposed a three-year actual suspension and required proof of rehabilitation, fitness, and ability to practice before reinstatement under Standard 1.4(c)(ii).

Facts

Lawrence, age 81, had endured decades of extreme physical disability. He suffered from trigeminal neuralgia (tic douloureux) for nearly 60 years, underwent multiple surgeries, and later experienced a brain injury requiring a craniotomy and extended hospitalization. His disabilities had previously rendered him inactive for more than a decade, and the court acknowledged their profound effect on his professional functioning.

The Orendorff Matter

In 2003, Lawrence deposited a $2,500 settlement check for client Maria Orendorff into his client trust account. He owed her $800, but over four months, the account balance dropped below that amount 24 times, reaching as low as $60.07. The Review Department found he violated Rule 4-100(A) (failure to maintain client funds in trust) and committed moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106 through gross negligence. The court noted his lack of trust accounting records and repeated shortfalls as clear indicators of moral turpitude.

The Inocenscio and Sisson Matter

In 2006, Lawrence represented clients Carmelita Inocenscio and Mary Ann Sisson in a settlement totaling $11,750. He disbursed client funds but withdrew his fees in multiple small amounts between October 2006 and February 2007 instead of promptly removing them when earned. The Review Department reversed the hearing judge and found Lawrence culpable of commingling funds in violation of Rule 4-100(A). He failed to maintain client records and could not document when his fees became fixed or whether certain withdrawals were case-related.

The Probation Violations

Following a 2009 Supreme Court order imposing probation, Lawrence failed to attend Ethics School and did not submit a required final report. Although many missed quarterly reports were excused due to his severe health crises, the court found a willful violation of Business & Professions Code §6068(k) for failing to comply with probation conditions.

Aggravation and Mitigation

The court found two aggravating factors: a significant disciplinary history and multiple acts of misconduct. Lawrence had prior discipline in 1981 (private reproval), 2006 (30-day suspension), and 2009 (six-month suspension). However, the court gave diminished weight to older or overlapping misconduct.

In mitigation, the Review Department recognized Lawrence’s extreme physical disabilities as “the most compelling mitigating circumstances.” His illnesses contributed to the misconduct and reduced moral culpability. The court held that permanent disability need not be “completely cured” for mitigation—what mattered was that Lawrence had demonstrated rehabilitation from the acute phase of his illness and regained cognitive clarity. His disabilities, while severe, justified deviation from the usual rule of disbarment after multiple priors.

Legal Standards Applied

The Review Department applied Standard 1.7(b) (disbarment after two or more prior disciplines unless compelling mitigation predominates) and Standard 2.2(a) (disbarment for willful misappropriation unless amount is insignificantly small or compelling mitigation exists). Because the $800 at issue was a “relatively small sum” and Lawrence repaid it promptly, and because his physical disabilities were compelling, the court found that disbarment would be excessive and punitive.

Holding and Discipline

The Review Department recommended that Lawrence be suspended for three years and remain suspended until he proves rehabilitation, fitness, and legal ability under Standard 1.4(c)(ii). The court declined to order disbarment, finding that the public would be adequately protected by a lengthy suspension with conditions requiring proof of rehabilitation.

Lawrence was also ordered to attend Ethics School, comply with California Rules of Court Rule 9.20, and reimburse disciplinary costs under Business & Professions Code §6086.10.

Key Takeaways

• Gross negligence in managing client trust accounts constitutes moral turpitude under §6106.
• Failure to promptly withdraw earned fees from a trust account is commingling.
• Extreme or chronic physical disabilities can serve as compelling mitigation even after multiple prior disciplines.
• The State Bar may deviate from presumptive disbarment if rehabilitation and reduced culpability are clearly shown.

Disposition

Three-year actual suspension with probation and until proof of rehabilitation, fitness, and ability to practice law is established.

In the Matter of Arthur Gootkin Lawrence (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 239.

Call to Action: If you are an attorney facing trust accounting allegations, moral turpitude charges, or probation violations before the State Bar Court, contact East Bay Law P.C. for confidential defense counsel.