In the Matter of Jeffrey Friedman

Facts Leading to Discipline

Jeffrey Friedman was admitted to the California State Bar in 1976. Over a short period beginning in the late 1980s, his law practice disintegrated, resulting in two separate disciplinary proceedings that both proceeded by default. In those prior matters, Friedman abandoned multiple clients, failed to perform legal services competently, failed to communicate with clients, failed to return unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with State Bar investigations.

As a result of the second disciplinary matter, the California Supreme Court ordered Friedman suspended for two years, stayed execution, placed him on probation for three years, and imposed a five-month actual suspension. The Supreme Court also ordered Friedman to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955, requiring him to notify clients and courts of his suspension and to file an affidavit attesting to that compliance within 40 days.

Although Friedman timely notified his sole California client and the relevant court of his suspension, he failed to timely file the required rule 955 affidavit. The affidavit was due on February 20, 1992, but was not filed until March 5, 1992—approximately two weeks late and before any formal rule 955 disciplinary referral was issued. Friedman did not seek relief or an extension for the late filing.

Charges

• Wilful failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955(c)

The charge was limited solely to the untimely filing of the affidavit of compliance. No allegations were made that Friedman failed to notify clients or courts under rule 955(a).

Defenses Raised

Friedman contended that his failure to timely file the affidavit was not purposeful, but instead the result of carelessness, confusion, and misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s order. He testified that he did not read the order carefully and mistakenly believed it duplicated an earlier suspension order.

He further argued that he had substantially complied with rule 955 by timely notifying all required parties, that no client was harmed, and that he filed the affidavit before any formal enforcement proceedings commenced. Friedman also relied on significant mitigating circumstances, including financial hardship, bankruptcy, cooperation with the State Bar, and the fact that he remained suspended on other grounds.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department agreed that Friedman’s conduct constituted a wilful violation of rule 955(c), explaining that wilfulness does not require intent to violate the rule—only a general purpose or willingness to commit the act or omission. Friedman’s confusion did not excuse the violation.

However, the court found compelling mitigation. Friedman had fully complied with the notice requirements of rule 955(a), filed the affidavit only 14 days late, did so before referral for formal disciplinary proceedings, and showed good faith, candor, and cooperation. The court also emphasized that Friedman faced extended suspension from multiple other orders, reducing any public protection concerns.

While disbarment is the presumptive sanction for wilful violations of rule 955, the Review Department concluded that rigid application of the Standards would be unjust under these facts. Nonetheless, the court rejected the hearing judge’s recommendation of no additional discipline, holding that some sanction was necessary to uphold professional standards and reinforce the importance of strict compliance with court orders.

Sanctions

Tags