In the Matter of Jess Trillo (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 59

Court: State Bar Court of California, Review Department | Date: May 3, 1990 | Judge: Stovitz, J. (opinion), joined by Pearlman, P.J., and Norian, J.

Charges Brought Against Respondent

Attorney Jess Trillo, admitted in 1974, was charged with multiple counts of professional misconduct stemming from his representation of two clients in 1984. The clients hired him to recover investment funds in a civil action and to pursue a related wage claim. Trillo accepted $2,000 in advanced attorney’s fees and $500 in costs but failed to perform promised legal services, failed to communicate with his clients, and later misappropriated the advanced funds. He also falsely claimed to be a partner in the law firm of Alexander & Hughes, despite being merely a space renter or associate. The hearing referee (Burton R. Popkoff) recommended disbarment after Trillo defaulted and did not appear at trial.

Defenses and Proceedings

Trillo did not respond to the Notice to Show Cause, and his default was entered pursuant to Rules of Procedure, rule 552.1. Despite the default, a hearing was held at which one client, Hortense Casillas, testified extensively about Trillo’s inaction and misrepresentations. She and co-client Alberta Klein had advanced Trillo funds for costs and fees after he promised swift action. He claimed to be preparing a lawsuit but never filed one. When the clients later learned that the defendants (the Palacios) were preparing for bankruptcy, they urgently sought communication, but Trillo stopped responding. After nearly a year of silence, he wrote an apologetic letter claiming illness and promising to meet, but still took no meaningful action. The clients ultimately lost their ability to recover when the defendants filed for bankruptcy. Trillo never refunded any money.

Review Department Findings

The Review Department agreed that the record supported serious misconduct, but found disbarment excessive. Upon independent review under Rule 453(a), it determined that Trillo wilfully violated several duties of honesty and fiduciary care but that the case involved only a single client matter. The Department added findings that Trillo personally misrepresented his partnership status to clients and converted the $2,500 advanced fees and costs. His actions constituted moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106 and violations of former Rules 6-101(A)(2) (failure to perform competently), 2-111(A)(3) (failure to refund unearned fees), and 8-101(A), (B)(3), and (B)(4) (trust account violations).

Findings on Misconduct

The Review Department concluded that Trillo’s failure to perform services for nearly a year, combined with his failure to communicate, violated his duty of competence and prejudiced his clients’ rights when the opposing party filed bankruptcy. His failure to return unearned fees and costs constituted conversion, and his admission that he had no client trust account and spent the funds for personal use confirmed willful violation of Rule 8-101(A). The Department also found that Trillo’s false claim of partnership status was dishonest conduct involving moral turpitude. However, it declined to adopt findings of uncharged misrepresentations about the status of the case, noting that it would be unfair to consider uncharged misconduct in a default matter.

Mitigation and Aggravation

In mitigation, Trillo had practiced for fourteen years with no prior record of discipline. The Department declined to treat his claimed illness as mitigating, since he offered no details regarding its duration or impact. Aggravating factors included: (1) multiple acts of wrongdoing; (2) significant harm to clients who lost their claim; and (3) bad faith and indifference shown by failing to make restitution. The Department declined to find lack of cooperation with the State Bar as aggravating, since Trillo had admitted the core facts during the investigation. It also avoided “double-counting” his deceit as both culpability and aggravation.

Outcome

The Review Department rejected disbarment as disproportionate, citing precedents such as Lawhorn v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357 and Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753. Instead, it recommended a three-year stayed suspension with three years’ probation and an actual suspension of one year or until full restitution of $2,500 plus 10% interest was made to the clients. Trillo was required to pass the Professional Responsibility Examination, comply with Rule 955 (now Rule 9.20), and undergo CPA-audited trust account monitoring. If actual suspension exceeded two years, he would need to prove rehabilitation under Standard 1.4(c)(ii).