In the Matter of Jay Allen Peterson (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 73
Court: State Bar Court of California, Review Department | Filed: May 30, 1990 (modified Sept. 28, 1990) | Judge: Stovitz, J.; concurred by Pearlman, P.J., and Norian, J.
Charges Brought Against Respondent
Attorney Jay Allen Peterson (admitted 1977; no prior discipline) was charged with abandoning three client matters, failing to perform promised services, failing to communicate, deceiving clients about case status, and failing to cooperate with the State Bar’s investigation. The matter proceeded by default. The hearing referee recommended a three-year stayed suspension with one year of actual suspension and probation conditions.
Defenses
Peterson filed no response and offered no defense. Default was entered, and the case proceeded on declarations, correspondence, and investigative materials submitted by the State Bar.
Review Department Findings
The Review Department independently reviewed the record and found multiple acts of moral turpitude arising from deliberate deceit and abandonment. Peterson made false statements to clients indicating that cases had been filed and hearings set when none had been. This deception delayed discovery and caused financial harm. His prolonged silence and disregard for official inquiries violated Business & Professions Code §6106 (moral turpitude) and §6068(i) (failure to cooperate).
Mitigation and Aggravation
Peterson had practiced since 1977 with no prior record of discipline, which the court acknowledged but assigned little weight. Aggravating factors included: (1) multiple acts of abandonment; (2) harm to three clients who suffered delay and loss; (3) deceit that prolonged client reliance; and (4) total failure to cooperate. No restitution or remorse was shown.
Outcome
The Review Department adopted the referee’s recommendation: a three-year stayed suspension, three years of probation, and one year of actual suspension. Peterson was ordered to pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year and comply with Rule 955 (now Rule 9.20) of the California Rules of Court. Quarterly probation reports and proof of compliance were required. The court emphasized that deceit and abandonment strike at the heart of the profession’s fiduciary duty to clients and warrant substantial discipline even for a first offense.
Sanctions Table
| Issue | Finding / Requirement |
|---|---|
| Culpability | Abandonment, deceit, failure to perform, failure to communicate, failure to cooperate (§6106, §6068(i)) |
| Aggravation | Multiple acts; client harm; dishonesty; indifference |
| Mitigation | No prior discipline (minimal weight) |
| Discipline | 3 years stayed; 3 years probation; 1 year actual suspension |
| Probation Conditions | Quarterly reporting; respond to Probation Monitor; maintain current contact information |
| Additional Requirements | Pass Professional Responsibility Exam; comply with Rule 955/9.20 |