Overview

In his third disciplinary proceeding since admission in 1997, Gregory Molina Burke was disbarred for engaging in unauthorized practice of law while suspended, repeatedly disobeying court sanctions orders, and maintaining unjust litigation. The Review Department applied Standard 1.8(b), holding that two prior disciplinary records combined with continued misconduct showed an unwillingness to conform to ethical standards.

Background

• Burke was suspended on December 29, 2011 for failing to pay child support under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.22.
• Despite his suspension, he continued practicing law, filing pleadings, and appearing in court.
• This was Burke’s third disciplinary action, following two prior suspensions (60 days and nine months) for similar misconduct.

Misconduct Summary

• Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL): Signed and served discovery responses and appeared at a case management conference while suspended; later negotiated settlements and appeared at depositions knowing he was suspended.
• Failure to Obey Court Orders: Ignored multiple sanctions orders across several cases, some unpaid for over two years.
• Moral Turpitude: Found for knowingly engaging in UPL; dismissed in one count due to lack of intent during a brief hearing.
• Unjust Actions: Maintained a frivolous lawsuit after being informed defendants were not contractually liable; sanctions affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Key Findings

• Sections Violated: §§6068(a), 6068(c), 6103, 6106, 6125, 6126.
• Rules Violated: Rule 3-110(A) (competence), Rule 1-300(A) (UPL).
• Intent: Multiple instances of willful misconduct; some findings of moral turpitude for knowing UPL.

Aggravating Factors

• Prior Discipline: Two prior suspensions (60 days and nine months) for UPL, misrepresentation, and trust account violations.
• Multiple Acts: Twelve proven counts across four client matters.
• Pattern of Misconduct: Repetition of same violations over eight years showed unfitness to practice law.

Mitigation

• Limited credit for cooperation by stipulating to facts; no compelling mitigation.

Court’s Analysis

The Review Department emphasized that disbarment was required under Standard 1.8(b) because Burke’s record showed a persistent inability to conform to professional duties. He continued UPL and ignored court orders even after being formally charged in prior cases. The court rejected the hearing judge’s leniency and found aggravation substantially outweighed mitigation.

Disposition

• Disbarment from the practice of law in California.
• Rule 9.20 compliance: Must notify 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 opinion.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Repeated UPL and defiance of court orders demonstrate unfitness to practice.
• Disbarment is presumptive under Standard 1.8(b) after two prior disciplines.
• Claiming ignorance or reliance on informal State Bar communication is not a defense.
• Sanctions unpaid for extended periods constitute willful disobedience under §6103.