In the Matter of Bleecker (1990)

Citation: 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 305
Court: State Bar Court, Review Department
Judge: Stovitz, J. (Opinion by Review Dept.)

Background and Facts

Respondent Frederick L. Bleecker, admitted in 1974, was charged with multiple counts of moral turpitude, client abandonment, and failure to perform legal services. The matter proceeded by default after Bleecker failed to answer the Notice to Show Cause or appear at the hearing. The State Bar’s evidence came through client testimony, documents, and declarations establishing serious, intentional misconduct across two client matters.

In the Morales matter, Bleecker was retained to file a wrongful termination suit and accepted a $2,000 retainer. He promised to file within a month but never filed a complaint. When contacted, he falsely claimed the case was “in progress” and later that it was “submitted.” The statute of limitations expired, and Morales discovered the deception only after contacting the court. Bleecker neither returned the unearned fee nor communicated thereafter.

In the Doran matter, Bleecker was hired to resolve a property escrow dispute. He took possession of escrow documents, failed to act, and disappeared with the client’s papers, preventing completion of a sale. He ignored all letters, phone calls, and a certified demand for the file. The State Bar found his conduct intentionally deceptive and financially harmful, constituting moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code §6106.

Bleecker also failed to cooperate with the State Bar investigation. Multiple letters sent to his official address went unanswered, and he made no appearance at any stage of the proceedings. The matter was submitted in default, with the record reflecting complete disregard for his professional obligations and the disciplinary authority of the Bar.

Charges and Findings

• Failure to perform legal services — Rule 6-101(A)(2) (Proven)
• Failure to communicate — §6068(m) (Proven)
• Failure to return unearned fees and client property — Rule 2-111(A)(3) (Proven)
• Moral turpitude (deceit and dishonesty) — §6106 (Proven)
• Failure to cooperate with the State Bar — §6068(i) (Proven)

Aggravation and Mitigation

• Aggravation: Multiple client harms, intentional deceit, financial loss, lack of restitution, and total noncooperation.
• Mitigation: None — respondent defaulted and presented no evidence of remorse or rehabilitation.

Review Department Opinion

The Review Department upheld the referee’s factual findings but increased the recommended discipline from suspension to disbarment. The opinion emphasized that Bleecker’s intentional deceit and abandonment of clients demonstrated moral turpitude and unfitness to practice law. His refusal to participate in disciplinary proceedings aggravated the severity of his misconduct and supported disbarment under Standards 2.3 and 2.6.

The Department distinguished cases involving mere negligence or poor bookkeeping, stating that Bleecker’s behavior reflected deliberate dishonesty and concealment, not carelessness. It reiterated that default in combination with moral turpitude “compels disbarment in the absence of extraordinary mitigation.”

Outcome and Discipline

The Review Department ordered that Frederick L. Bleecker be disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of California attorneys. Restitution to both clients was ordered as a precondition to any future reinstatement. The opinion reaffirmed that default proceedings do not diminish the seriousness of deceit or moral turpitude, but instead highlight an attorney’s contempt for the regulatory process itself.

Sanctions Table

Significance

Bleecker establishes that when intentional deceit, moral turpitude, and default coincide, disbarment is the presumptive discipline. The decision underscores the importance of cooperation with the State Bar and the profession’s demand for honesty toward clients. It remains a leading authority for disbarment where dishonesty and abandonment are proven without mitigating factors.

Tags