In the Matter of Richard C. Stamper (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 96

Court: State Bar Court of California, Review Department | Filed: July 9, 1990 | Panel: Pearlman, P.J. (opinion), with Norian, J., and Stovitz, J., concurring.

Charges Brought Against Respondent

Criminal conviction referral. After a jury convicted attorney Richard C. Stamper of forgery and grand theft by embezzlement for diverting partnership funds from his law firm (not client money), the State Bar sought disbarment. The hearing referee agreed. On review, the court emphasized that the crimes were internal to the law partnership—checks and forged client “refund” letters used to deceive a partner—and that no client was a victim.

Defenses and Proceedings

The matter came as a conviction referral after partial affirmance on appeal (two forgery and two embezzlement counts sustained; others reversed as time-barred). Stamper had been on interim suspension since October 17, 1986. He offered extensive mitigation: restitution to the partner through an unequal division of assets and fees, extraordinary character evidence from lawyers, officials, and clients, and psychological evaluations showing aberrational behavior linked to stress and an excellent prognosis.

Key Legal Rulings

• No summary disbarment (§6102(c)): The felonies were not “committed in the course of the practice of law,” and no client was a victim; the conduct was internal to the firm.
• Independent review and burden: The Review Department conducted an independent review; the State Bar bore a clear-and-convincing burden.
• Standards are guidelines: Standard 3.2 allows compelling mitigation to justify a sanction short of disbarment for crimes involving moral turpitude.

Findings

Over several years, Stamper forged client endorsements on refund checks drawn on the firm’s trust account and deposited them to his personal account, placing false refund letters in client files to conceal the diversions. The total was about $32,138 (half of which would have been his as a 50 percent partner). No clients lost money; the only victim was his partner, who later received full restitution through the division of firm assets and fees.

Mitigation and Aggravation

Mitigation: (1) No prior discipline; (2) extraordinary character evidence from the legal and civic community; (3) restitution and absence of lasting harm to the partner; (4) emotional and psychological factors establishing aberration and low risk of recurrence; and (5) sincere remorse and rehabilitation.

Aggravation: Multiple acts over time and deliberate concealment. The court rejected other aggravators, finding no lack of candor or ongoing risk.

Outcome

The Review Department declined to recommend disbarment. Instead, it ordered a five-year suspension, stayed, with five years’ probation and four years’ actual suspension, granting full credit for time already served under interim suspension. Conditions included quarterly probation reports, CPA trust-account audits if he handled client funds, continuing psychological treatment with certification, and passing the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year.

Sanctions Table