Overview

Attorney Charles Gadsden Kinney was disbarred for abusing the judicial process through years of meritless and harassing litigation against neighbors and others. The Review Department found that Kinney’s conduct constituted moral turpitude and violated Business & Professions Code §6068(c) and §6106. Despite more than 30 years of discipline-free practice, his persistent misuse of the courts and lack of remorse warranted disbarment to protect the public and the courts.

Background

Kinney engaged in two major campaigns of vexatious litigation over property disputes:

• Fernwood Cases (Los Angeles County): Between 2006 and 2009, Kinney and co-owner Kimberly Kempton filed six lawsuits against neighbors and the city over fences, driveways, and easements. The trial court condemned his behavior as “relentless bullying.” He was declared a vexatious litigant in 2008, yet continued to file cases in Kempton’s name while serving as her attorney, despite his personal interest in the outcome.
• Smedberg Cases (El Dorado County): Acting for clients Gerald and Robin Toste, Kinney filed repetitive and frivolous lawsuits and six appeals concerning an easement dispute. The courts repeatedly dismissed his filings as meritless and an abuse of process.

Findings of Misconduct

• Maintaining Unjust Actions (§6068(c)): Pursued frivolous lawsuits and appeals even after multiple judicial warnings and vexatious litigant declarations.
• Moral Turpitude (§6106): Misused the courts to harass, ignored orders, and manipulated others to evade restrictions.
• Failure to Comply with Court Orders: Continued filing and appearances despite restrictions on his right to litigate.

Aggravation

• Pattern and Multiple Acts: Ongoing misconduct spanning six years and multiple venues.
• Harm to Public and Courts: Neighbors expended large sums and suffered distress; the courts wasted significant resources.
• Lack of Remorse: Denied wrongdoing and displayed no understanding of the harm caused.

Mitigation

• Lengthy Discipline-Free Career: Thirty-one prior discipline-free years received minimal weight because the misconduct was egregious and likely to recur.
• No other mitigation was proven.

Disciplinary Analysis

The Review Department determined Kinney’s conduct was a systematic abuse of the judicial system. He weaponized litigation to intimidate and exhaust opponents. Citing In the Matter of Varakin (1994) and Lebbos v. State Bar (1991), the court held that such conduct—repetitive, harmful, and devoid of good faith—requires disbarment to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.

Sanctions Table

Disposition

• Disbarred from the practice of law in California.
• Ordered to comply with Rule 9.20 (client and court notification).
• Costs awarded under §6086.10.
• Remains involuntarily inactive pending Supreme Court order.

Key Takeaways

• Attorneys who weaponize litigation for harassment commit moral turpitude and risk disbarment.
• Being declared a vexatious litigant in civil court strongly supports disciplinary culpability.
• A long discipline-free record offers little mitigation where misconduct is extensive and intentional.
• Public protection and preservation of judicial integrity outweigh sympathy for prior good record.