In the Matter of Wright (1990)

Citation: 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 219
Court: State Bar Court, Review Department
Filed: November 19, 1990
Panel: Pearlman, P.J.; Norian, J.; Stovitz, J.

Background

Gordon C. Wright was disbarred in 1983 for misappropriation of client and fiduciary funds. Years later he petitioned for reinstatement. At hearing, Wright proceeded in pro per and the judge (Hon. Alan K. Goldhammer) denied the petition. Wright sought review, arguing (1) the record of his prior disciplinary case should not have been admitted, (2) the judge wrongly excluded a second character affidavit from his employer in New Mexico, and (3) the judge was biased. He also challenged the State Bar’s investigation timeline and contended he had shown rehabilitation, current moral fitness, and present learning in the law.

Standards on Reinstatement

A petitioner bears a heavy burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and present learning and ability in the law. Proof must overcome the court’s former adverse judgment of character, typically shown by sustained exemplary conduct over an extended period. The Review Department gives weight to the hearing judge’s credibility findings but independently reviews the record.

Key Procedural Rulings

• Prior record admissible: Records from the earlier disbarment proceeding are properly considered in reinstatement because present character is assessed in light of prior misconduct.
• Investigation period: A 30-day extension of the pre-hearing investigation was permitted by rule; no specific prejudice was shown from any delay.
• Evidence exclusion: A second affidavit from the same character witness (employer) was excluded as hearsay and as cumulative; one detailed affidavit had already been admitted with the petition.
• No bias shown: The hearing judge’s blunt language in evaluating credibility and attitude did not establish bias; as trier of fact he could weigh demeanor and credibility.

Findings on the Merits

• Rule 955 noncompliance: Wright did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955 (now rule 9.20) after disbarment. Failure to comply is a serious negative factor and itself a ground to deny reinstatement.
• Restitution: He ultimately made restitution regarding the underlying matters (the Review Department modifies the findings to reflect this) but his overall conduct toward other creditors was troubling.
• Attitude toward creditors: He failed to keep certain creditors apprised of his whereabouts and exhibited indifference toward outstanding civil obligations.
• Candor and completeness: His reinstatement application omitted a recent New Mexico lawsuit he filed against his employer (later dismissed), and he initially concealed his disbarment from that employer.
• Character evidence: Only one character affiant (the employer) was presented; no additional witnesses were offered, though depositions from out-of-state supporters were available procedurally.
• Learning and ability in law: Although he described research and briefing work for his employer and some CLE, he produced no samples of legal writing or concrete proof of current California legal knowledge; his pleadings and hearing performance reflected inadequate present learning/ability.

Holding

The Review Department affirmed the denial of reinstatement. It agreed prior records were admissible, upheld the exclusion of the cumulative affidavit, rejected claims of bias, and—despite acknowledging restitution—found Wright failed to carry his burden to show rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and current learning in the law.

Significance

Wright underscores that reinstatement after disbarment hinges on persuasive, corroborated evidence of long-term rehabilitation, candor, compliance with rule 955/9.20, responsible treatment of creditors, and tangible proof of current legal competence (including written work, CLE, and, where appropriate, conditions such as the PRE or even re-examination). Laudatory but thin character evidence will not suffice, particularly where candor and compliance are deficient.

Sanctions / Disposition Table

Tags