In the Matter of Waldo A. Brown

Facts

Waldo A. Brown was admitted to the California Bar in 1959 and practiced primarily as a criminal defense attorney. Between 1974 and 1977, Brown engaged in two sophisticated and prolonged schemes involving the manipulation of driving-under-the-influence (DUI) cases.

In the first scheme, a deputy court clerk suggested an unlawful method by which DUI charges would be dismissed and reduced to reckless driving without the knowledge or participation of the judge or prosecuting attorney. Brown used this method in approximately 54 cases. Although he did not charge clients additional fees and the clerk received no compensation, the dismissals were obtained through deceptive means and subverted the judicial process.

In the second scheme, Brown exploited lax courtroom practices and manipulated approximately 85 DUI cases by obtaining rulings declaring prior DUI convictions unconstitutional without prosecutorial participation. These rulings prevented the convictions from being used for sentence enhancement in future cases, even where the convictions were valid. This conduct continued until the presiding judge retired in 1977.

Brown’s misconduct resulted in two felony convictions: conspiracy to obstruct justice and falsifying documents and public records. He served time in custody, completed parole and probation, and was placed on interim suspension by the California Supreme Court in 1981. After a State Bar hearing panel recommended disbarment, Brown resigned from the Bar in 1985 with disciplinary charges pending.

In the years following his resignation, Brown did not practice law. Beginning in 1986, he worked as a paralegal and, starting in 1987, volunteered one full day per week for several years at a legal services program, receiving formal recognition for his service. His first reinstatement petition was denied in 1988. He filed the present petition in 1990, more than 15 years after the underlying misconduct.

Issues Presented

• Whether Brown proved rehabilitation and present moral qualifications for reinstatement.
• Whether the seriousness and duration of his prior misconduct permanently barred readmission.
• Whether the hearing judge applied the correct legal standard to uncontroverted rehabilitation evidence.

Petitioner’s Showing and Defenses

Brown acknowledged the full seriousness of his misconduct, accepted responsibility, and expressed genuine remorse. He testified credibly that his conduct reflected a fundamental failure of values and described a profound change in his ethical outlook.

In support of rehabilitation, Brown presented extensive evidence, including more than a decade of unblemished conduct, sustained and significant pro bono legal service, and favorable testimony from seven character witnesses, including attorneys, judges, and a psychologist. He also submitted nineteen letters of reference attesting to his honesty, integrity, and ethical sensitivity.

A psychologist who evaluated Brown over multiple sessions testified that the risk of recidivism was very low and that Brown’s misconduct stemmed from an “ego trip,” not greed, and was unlikely to recur given his changed values and stage of life.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department conducted an independent review of the record and accepted all factual findings of the hearing judge, including the credibility of Brown and his witnesses. Because credibility was not in dispute, the central question was whether the undisputed evidence met Brown’s heavy burden of proof as a matter of law.

The court emphasized that reinstatement does not require perfection or a guarantee against future misconduct. Although Brown’s prior misconduct was egregious, California law favors rehabilitation and does not impose a lifetime ban on erring attorneys who demonstrate reform.

The Review Department faulted the hearing judge for discounting key rehabilitation factors, including the passage of 15–18 years since the misconduct, Brown’s extensive pro bono service, his demonstrated remorse, and the strong character evidence from multiple independent sources. When compared to other reported cases in which reinstatement was granted, Brown’s showing equaled or exceeded those cases.

Accordingly, the Review Department concluded that Brown had met his burden of proving rehabilitation and present moral qualifications and recommended reinstatement.

Disposition