Overview

This 2017 opinion concerns Steven Howard Unger, a former California attorney who sought reinstatement to the practice of law after resigning with disciplinary charges pending in 2002. The hearing judge dismissed his petition as untimely under Rule 9.10(f) of the California Rules of Court, concluding Unger had not “taken and passed” the Attorneys’ Examination within three years before filing. The Review Department reversed, holding that the three-year limitation period begins to run on the date the applicant is notified of passing the examination, not the date the exam is taken. The case clarified an important procedural rule for reinstatement applicants.

Key Facts

• Unger resigned from the State Bar in 2002 with disciplinary charges pending.
• He took the Attorneys’ Examination in February 2013 and received written notice that he had passed on May 17, 2013.
• He filed his reinstatement petition on May 16, 2016, attaching his passing notification as proof of compliance with Rule 9.10(f).
• The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) moved to dismiss, arguing the three-year clock began when Unger took the exam, not when he passed it.
• The hearing judge agreed and dismissed the petition as untimely, reasoning that timely passage demonstrates “present ability and learning in the general law.”

Issues Presented

• When does the three-year filing window under Rule 9.10(f) begin — on the date of examination or on the date of notification of passage?
• Whether dismissing the petition served the policy goal of assessing an applicant’s current competence.

Holding and Reasoning

• The Review Department held that Rule 9.10(f) and Rule 5.441 establish a single pre-filing requirement — the applicant must have taken and passed the Attorneys’ Examination before filing for reinstatement.
• Because one cannot “pass” until notified of results, the three-year period begins on the date the Committee of Bar Examiners mails written notice of passage.
• The Court rejected the hearing judge’s view that this reading removes the time limit, emphasizing that results are generally mailed within three to four months of the exam.
• Applying this interpretation, Unger’s filing was timely because it occurred within three years of May 17, 2013.
• The decision relied on principles of plain-language interpretation, fairness, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Procedural Posture

• Unger’s matter was designated for summary review under Rule 5.157 of the State Bar Court’s Rules of Procedure.
• After full briefing and oral argument in January 2017, the Review Department (Judges Purcell, Honn, and McGill) issued a unanimous opinion reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

Significance

• This case clarified the interpretation of Rule 9.10(f), preventing a procedural “trap” for reinstatement petitioners who might otherwise lose eligibility due to administrative timing.
• The ruling aligned with the reasoning of an earlier hearing decision, In the Matter of Ellerman (2016), emphasizing equitable application of reinstatement procedures.
• The opinion reaffirmed the State Bar Court’s commitment to resolving reinstatement petitions on their substantive merits.

Sanctions & Disposition Table

Notes: The decision harmonized conflicting interpretations among hearing judges and established that the reinstatement filing window begins on the written notification of passing the Attorneys’ Examination.

Tags