Citation: 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 338
Filed: October 22, 2014
Tribunal: Review Department, State Bar Court of California
Judges: Opinion by Judge Honn, with Presiding Judge Purcell and Judge Epstein concurring
Result: Disbarment
Overview
Attorney Kenneth Bruce Tishgart, admitted to the California Bar in 1980, was disbarred for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and committing acts of moral turpitude while suspended.
The misconduct occurred during a disciplinary suspension imposed in 2011–2012, marking his fourth disciplinary proceeding since admission. The Review Department found multiple aggravating factors—including prior discipline, ongoing misconduct during suspension, and lack of insight—and ordered disbarment under Standard 1.8(b).
Background and Facts
Tishgart had three prior disciplines:
- 1992 public reproval for failing to communicate with a client.
- 2010 suspension (90 days actual) for failure to perform competently.
- 2011 suspension (18 months actual) for violating court orders and gross negligence in handling client funds.
While serving that third suspension, Tishgart continued operating as if licensed:
- He paid for television advertisements promoting “The Tishgart Law Office,” using his prior office number with a recorded message implying he was available for representation.
- The ads lacked any disclaimer stating he was suspended.
- He maintained a website (tishgartlaw.com) identifying himself as “Attorney at Law.”
- He communicated with a former client (Ambrosio), agreed to handle her claim, and negotiated directly with insurers and Medicare.
- He endorsed a settlement check payable to “Law Offices of Kenneth B. Tishgart” and the client, despite his suspended status.
These actions constituted both holding himself out as entitled to practice and actual practice of law.
Violations Found
- Unauthorized Practice of Law / Holding Out
- Violated Business & Professions Code §§ 6125, 6126, incorporated through § 6068(a) (duty to obey the law).
- His advertising, voicemail, and website implied licensure during suspension.
- Moral Turpitude (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106)
- Found to have committed moral turpitude by concealment and by misleading a client into believing he could act as an attorney.
Aggravation
- Three prior disciplines (reproval, 90-day suspension, and 18-month suspension).
- Multiple acts of misconduct.
- Misconduct committed while on suspension and probation.
- No evidence of rehabilitation or insight.
Mitigation
- Limited credit for stipulating to facts and documentary evidence.
- No other mitigating circumstances were presented.
Court’s Analysis
Under Standard 1.8(b), disbarment is presumptive for attorneys with two or more prior records of discipline unless compelling mitigation is present.
The Review Department held that:
- Tishgart’s repeated misconduct during suspension demonstrated unwillingness or inability to conform to professional standards.
- His actions undermined public trust in the integrity of the legal profession.
- “Advice of counsel” did not excuse the misconduct, as he did not fully follow any purported legal guidance.
Accordingly, the Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s culpability findings and ordered disbarment.
Final Disposition
- Disbarment from the practice of law in California.
- Rule 9.20 compliance (notification of clients and courts).
- Costs payable to the State Bar.
- Involuntary inactive enrollment to continue pending final Supreme Court order.
Key Takeaways
- A suspended attorney cannot imply licensure or maintain advertisements or websites suggesting current eligibility to practice.
- “Advice of counsel” is not a defense to clear statutory or ethical violations.
- Under Standard 1.8(b), disbarment is the default outcome for attorneys with multiple prior records and continued misconduct.
- Advertising or client communications during suspension constitute holding out and UPL, even absent intent to deceive.
Summary:
Kenneth Bruce Tishgart was disbarred for continuing to present himself as an active attorney through advertising, communications, and client representation while suspended. The court found no meaningful mitigation and imposed disbarment to protect the public and maintain professional integrity.