Facts

Respondent G, admitted to practice in 1981, was retained in June 1982 to probate the estate of his client’s mother. The client, Alice B., was both executor and sole beneficiary of the estate. Emotionally distraught following her mother’s death, she relied entirely on Respondent for all legal matters and documentation. Respondent prepared all probate filings and correspondence, including those executed by Alice as executor.

Respondent orally advised Alice that she would owe state inheritance taxes but failed to confirm this in writing or to follow up on the matter. In October 1983, the inheritance tax referee filed a report setting the tax at $818, and the superior court issued an order confirming that assessment. Copies of both the report and order were mailed to Respondent’s office, but he never notified Alice or forwarded her copies. Believing the estate was fully resolved, she made no payment.

Years later, in 1987, the State Controller’s Office contacted Respondent twice regarding the unpaid tax. Respondent again failed to contact his client or alert her to the delinquency. The Controller finally sent a letter directly to Alice, revealing that she owed over $1,200 including penalties and interest. By then, her husband was gravely ill and she was unable to pay. The state recorded a judgment lien against her property in 1989. Alice eventually paid the principal tax but remained liable for interest that accrued over three years due to Respondent’s inaction.

After the client confronted him, Respondent admitted responsibility and agreed to pay the interest portion. Although he expressed willingness to make restitution, the payment had not yet been made when disciplinary proceedings began. There was no evidence that Respondent intentionally deceived his client; the misconduct stemmed from prolonged neglect rather than bad faith. This was his first probate case and occurred early in his career.

Findings and Discussion

The Review Department found that Respondent’s repeated failure to notify his client of her inheritance tax obligation constituted a wilful violation of former Rule 6-101(A)(2) (now Rule 3-110(A)), which prohibits reckless or repeated failure to perform legal services competently. The court noted that even without intent to deceive, such sustained neglect reflects disregard for the client’s needs and duties owed under professional standards.

While Respondent argued that his omission was unintentional, the Department emphasized that “wilfulness” in disciplinary proceedings does not require proof of evil motive — only awareness and repeated inaction. By ignoring multiple notices of tax liability over a four-year period, he breached his duty of diligence and communication. The court cited Kapelus v. State Bar and Van Slaten v. State Bar to reinforce that neglect alone can constitute wilful misconduct.

In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated candor and full cooperation, improved his office procedures to prevent future errors, and voluntarily attended the State Bar’s ethics training. No aggravating factors were found. The Review Department agreed with the hearing judge’s recommendation of a private reproval, but eliminated the requirement that Respondent pass the Professional Responsibility Examination (CPRE), finding it unnecessary given his rehabilitative progress. Restitution for the interest owed was, however, required as a condition of reproval.

Sanctions Table

Holding and Significance

The Review Department reaffirmed that neglect and repeated inattention to client matters — even without intent to harm — can constitute wilful misconduct under Rule 6-101(A)(2). The court underscored that attorneys handling probate matters must communicate all tax assessments and court notices to their clients promptly. The case also clarified that restitution is appropriate even where the harm arises from negligence rather than misappropriation, serving rehabilitative rather than punitive purposes.

Tags