In the Matter of Charles Fitzgerald Howard
2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 445
Facts
Charles Fitzgerald Howard was admitted to the California State Bar in 1949. In 1990, the California Supreme Court imposed discipline consisting of a three-year stayed suspension, probation, and thirty days of actual suspension based on misconduct arising from Howard’s role as trustee of a testamentary trust. That misconduct included failure to return client files, failure to render an accounting, and failure to comply with superior court orders in related probate and malpractice proceedings.
As part of the probation conditions, Howard was required to cooperate with a certified public accountant to render an accounting of trust assets and determine any financial losses, comply with a January 1989 superior court order requiring turnover of files and records, and submit quarterly probation reports. Despite acknowledging these obligations to his probation monitor, Howard ceased communication and failed to comply.
The CPA was unable to determine tax liabilities or financial losses because Howard failed to provide complete records. Howard did not submit proof of compliance with the court order and failed to file required quarterly probation reports. A notice to show cause was filed alleging probation violations. Howard failed to answer, default was entered, and he was involuntarily enrolled inactive.
Charges
- Wilful failure to comply with disciplinary probation conditions
- Failure to deliver financial records necessary for accounting and restitution
- Failure to comply with a superior court order
- Failure to submit required probation reports
- Violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068(k)
Defenses
Howard did not meaningfully participate in the probation revocation proceedings. He defaulted by failing to file an answer to the notice to show cause and did not present evidence in mitigation or rebuttal. On review, no defenses were advanced to contest culpability.
The Review Department limited culpability findings to misconduct specifically charged in the notice to show cause and declined to rely on uncharged violations as aggravation due to the default posture of the case.
Court’s Ruling
The Review Department independently reviewed the record and affirmed that Howard wilfully violated his probation conditions by failing to deliver financial records to the CPA and failing to comply with the January 1989 court order. These failures prevented determination of restitution and demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation.
Although the hearing judge recommended only ninety days of actual suspension, the Review Department concluded that the seriousness of the probation violations, Howard’s prior discipline, and his failure to participate warranted substantially increased discipline.
Balancing the purposes of attorney discipline—public protection and rehabilitation—the court recommended revocation of probation, imposition of a one-year actual suspension, involuntary inactive enrollment, and a requirement that Howard demonstrate rehabilitation, present fitness to practice, and present learning in the law under Standard 1.4(c)(ii) before resuming practice.
Sanctions
| Sanction | Details |
|---|---|
| Probation | Revoked |
| Actual Suspension | 1 year, credited from date of inactive enrollment |
| Reinstatement Requirement | Proof of rehabilitation, fitness, and learning under Standard 1.4(c)(ii) |
| Inactive Enrollment | Immediate, pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 6007(d) |
| Additional Orders | Rule 955 compliance, Professional Responsibility Exam, costs |
Tags
Failure to comply with court and probation orders can rapidly escalate discipline. Contact East Bay Law P.C. for experienced California State Bar defense representation.