Overview

Wenzel was convicted of a misdemeanor for repeatedly placing hidden video cameras in public, unisex restrooms at Coffee Bean restaurants to record patrons using the facilities. The Review Department held that the facts and circumstances involved moral turpitude, warranting significant professional discipline. Given the seriousness, repetition, and Wenzel’s unresolved substance-abuse issues, the court increased discipline to a two-year actual suspension and required proof of rehabilitation and fitness before any return to practice.

Key Facts

• Conduct (Nov 2011–Jan 2012): Hid small cameras on four occasions in Coffee Bean restrooms; each device was found and turned over to police after capturing explicit images of patrons.
• Additional recordings: Secretly filmed sexual activity with his wife (against her wishes) and attempted to record his wife’s friend undressing at home.
• Conviction: Pled no contest to Penal Code §647(j)(1) (unlawful viewing into a restroom). Sentenced to a suspended term and 24 months’ probation with counseling, community service, fines, and restrictions on recording devices.
• Professional fallout: Terminated by his firm; resigned from ABOTA board to avoid embarrassment.
• Prior similar act: Admitted a 2009 attempt to place a camera in a Coffee Bean restroom.

Culpability & Legal Standards

• Moral Turpitude: Even when criminal conduct is unrelated to client matters, it constitutes moral turpitude if it reflects a serious breach of societal norms likely to undermine public confidence in the profession. Wenzel’s repeated, intentional invasions of privacy met this standard.
• Psychiatric defense rejected: Treating psychiatrist attributed conduct to bipolar disorder and medication, but the court found the opinion unreliable (uninformed about 2009 act; no direct observation of manic state; based on Wenzel’s narrative) and the conviction conclusively established intent.

Aggravation & Mitigation

Disciplinary Analysis

Under the Standards, misdemeanor convictions involving moral turpitude call for actual suspension or disbarment. The court found disbarment excessive, but a stayed suspension alone would not protect the public given the severity, repetition, and ongoing substance-abuse concerns (including a methamphetamine relapse shortly before trial). Placing discipline toward the high end of the range, the court ordered two years’ actual suspension plus a proof-of-rehabilitation requirement before reinstatement.

Disposition

• Stayed Suspension: Two years.
• Probation: Three years, with minimum two years of actual suspension and continued suspension until proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning/ability in the law (Standards 1.2(c)(1)).
• MPRE: Must pass during actual suspension.
• Ethics School: Completion and test within one year (no MCLE credit).
• Rule 9.20: Compliance required.
• Costs: Awarded under §6086.10, enforceable under §6140.7.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Repeated invasions of privacy for sexual gratification constitute moral turpitude even when unrelated to client matters.
• Psychiatric explanations must be credible, comprehensive, and tied directly to the misconduct; otherwise, they won’t mitigate culpability.
• When serious misconduct coincides with unresolved substance-abuse issues, courts will require proof of rehabilitation before practice may resume.