In the Matter of Roland Ramez Salameh (1994)

Overview

The Review Department recommended summary disbarment after respondent’s felony conviction for forgery of a court document committed in the course of representing a client. The court held that statutory criteria under Business and Professions Code section 6102(c) were satisfied and that disbarment was fully consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Due-process challenges were rejected because the conviction conclusively established guilt of the crime’s elements.

Facts

Roland Ramez Salameh was convicted on September 15, 1992, of one felony count of forgery (Pen. Code § 470(a)) following a guilty plea. The conviction arose from a pending personal injury case in Orange County in which Salameh represented the plaintiff.

A proof of service and declaration of diligence that had already been filed with the superior court was later altered and then presented as genuine in support of a motion to enter default. The alteration was performed by a court clerk who also provided clerical services for respondent. As the factual basis for his plea, respondent admitted that, with intent to prejudice, he aided and abetted the false alteration of the court document executed and filed on his behalf and later presented the document as true and accurate.

Following transmission of the record of conviction, respondent was placed on interim suspension effective February 9, 1993. After the conviction became final, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel sought summary disbarment pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6102(c).

Statutory Basis for Summary Disbarment

Defenses and Due Process Arguments

Respondent argued he should receive a hearing to prove that he did not actually intend to commit a crime and that he pled guilty only to avoid multiple trials. He also suggested the conviction might be reduced to a misdemeanor after one year.

The Review Department rejected these arguments. Proof of a felony conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt of the elements of the crime in attorney discipline proceedings, precluding any collateral attack or re-litigation of intent. A conviction following a guilty plea is treated the same as one following a trial. Moreover, the crime remains a felony for State Bar purposes regardless of post-conviction reclassification.

Moral Turpitude and Supreme Court Precedent

Forgery is a crime of moral turpitude per se. Supreme Court authority holds that disbarment is the rule rather than the exception for forgery, particularly where the misconduct involves fraud on the court. Even if respondent had been granted a hearing, precedent dictated that disbarment would be the expected outcome.

Outcome

The Review Department concluded that summary disbarment under section 6102(c) was clearly consistent with Supreme Court standards and recommended that respondent be summarily disbarred. Because respondent had already been ordered to comply with rule 955 upon interim suspension, no further 955 recommendation was included. Costs were awarded to the State Bar.

Sanctions Table