Overview

Attorney Michael R. Carver was disbarred for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended for failing to comply with prior disciplinary conditions. The Review Department found he acted with moral turpitude through willful blindness to his ineligible status. Carver had two prior disciplinary matters, including one actual suspension. Under Standard 1.8(b), disbarment was deemed necessary because his pattern of misconduct demonstrated an inability to conform to professional responsibilities.

Background and Prior Discipline

• Carver I (2011): Public reproval with conditions for misdemeanor convictions—driving without a valid license and resisting arrest.
• Carver II (2015): 90-day actual suspension for violating the conditions of his reproval, including failure to report to probation and file compliance reports.
• Despite these prior sanctions, Carver practiced law while enrolled inactive in February 2012, appearing in court and filing documents for clients.

Unauthorized Practice and Moral Turpitude

• Carver was properly served with notice of his suspension but intentionally avoided receiving it by changing his official membership address to one that could not accept certified mail.
• He failed to check his membership status before making court appearances and later claimed ignorance of his suspension.
• The court held this constituted willful blindness — legally equivalent to actual knowledge — satisfying the intent requirement for moral turpitude under §6106.
• By filing pleadings and appearing before a judge while ineligible, Carver violated §§6068(a), 6125, and 6126.

Aggravation

• Prior discipline: Two previous disciplinary matters, including an actual suspension, showed persistent disregard for ethical rules.
• Concealment: Misrepresented to the court that his inactive status was due to unpaid dues, concealing the real reason.
• Indifference: Failed to acknowledge wrongdoing or participate in review proceedings, showing lack of remorse.

Mitigation

• Character evidence: Limited weight; small number of witnesses from a narrow professional circle.
• Personal stress: Rejected as mitigation because emotional strain did not directly cause his misconduct.

Court’s Analysis

The Review Department held that the hearing judge erred by not considering Carver II as a prior record of discipline, even though it was not yet final. Under Rule 5.106(A), pending disciplinary recommendations must be treated as prior discipline. Applying Standard 1.8(b), the court concluded disbarment was warranted where:

• There were two prior discipline records, one involving actual suspension;
• The misconduct demonstrated unwillingness or inability to conform to professional standards;
• No compelling mitigation justified departure from presumptive disbarment.

Disposition

• Disbarment: Ordered from the practice of law in California.
• Rule 9.20 compliance: Required notice to clients, courts, and opposing counsel within 30 and 40 days.
• Costs: Payable under §6086.10, enforceable as a money judgment.
• Inactive enrollment: Effective three days after service of the opinion.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Willful blindness to inactive status constitutes moral turpitude.
• Under Standard 1.8(b), two prior discipline records with one suspension presumptively warrant disbarment.
• Changing an official Bar address to evade service shows bad faith and aggravates discipline.
• Failure to participate in proceedings signals indifference and lack of rehabilitation.