Overview

In the Matter of Myrdall is a landmark Review Department decision addressing cumulative attorney misconduct spanning more than a decade and multiple client matters. Although the hearing judge recommended a lengthy stayed suspension with probation and actual suspension, the Review Department concluded that the breadth, persistence, and seriousness of the misconduct required disbarment to protect the public and the integrity of the profession.

Factual Background

Respondent Sheryll Layne Myrdall was admitted to the California State Bar in 1979 and had no prior disciplinary record. Beginning only a few years after admission, she engaged in misconduct in at least twelve separate client matters. The misconduct included repeated failures to perform basic legal tasks, chronic lack of communication, mishandling of client property, and deliberate misrepresentations to courts.

In several matters, respondent failed to file required pleadings, inventories, and accountings, allowed statutes of limitation to expire, failed to appear at hearings and trials, and neglected to advance her clients’ objectives. Clients and successor counsel repeatedly complained that respondent did not return telephone calls, failed to respond to correspondence, and did not keep clients reasonably informed.

Particularly egregious were multiple instances in which respondent filed declarations containing false statements of fact. In at least two matters, she represented to courts that motions had been filed, service completed, or hearings scheduled when those representations were untrue. The Review Department credited the hearing judge’s credibility findings rejecting respondent’s explanations and concluded that the false statements were deliberate rather than inadvertent.

Respondent also repeatedly failed to promptly return client files after discharge, improperly conditioned delivery of files on execution of substitution of attorney forms, failed to safeguard advanced costs in trust, and accepted or continued representations despite lacking sufficient time and resources to competently complete the work.

Rules and Statutes Violated

The Review Department found violations of multiple provisions of the Business and Professions Code and former Rules of Professional Conduct, including:

• Business and Professions Code section 6106 (moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption);
• Business and Professions Code section 6068(d) (duty of truthfulness to the court);
• Former rule 6-101 / 6-101(A)(2) (failure to perform legal services competently);
• Former rule 2-111(A)(2) (failure to take reasonable steps to avoid prejudice upon termination, including prompt return of files);
• Former rule 7-105 (misleading statements to a court); and
• Former trust-account and conflict rules in specific matters.

Moral Turpitude and Pattern of Misconduct

The Review Department emphasized that moral turpitude does not require intent to defraud. Gross negligence or a habitual disregard of clients’ interests can suffice. Respondent’s repeated failures of competence and diligence across numerous matters, combined with her deliberate misrepresentations to courts, constituted a pervasive pattern of misconduct involving moral turpitude.

The misconduct began early in respondent’s career and continued for more than seven years. The number of affected clients, the range of violations, and the duration of the misconduct demonstrated that it was not isolated or aberrational.

Aggravation and Mitigation

Significant aggravating factors were present, including multiple acts of misconduct, harm to clients, harm to the administration of justice, and uncharged violations demonstrating a broader pattern of professional disregard. Although respondent presented some character testimony and evidence of personal difficulties, the Review Department gave this mitigation limited weight because it did not represent a broad cross-section of the legal or general community.

Discipline Analysis

The hearing judge recommended a five-year stayed suspension with five years of probation and an actual suspension of three years, conditioned on restitution and rehabilitation. On review, the Review Department concluded that this recommendation understated the gravity of the misconduct. Citing prior precedent, the court noted that cases involving serious, wide-ranging misconduct and moral turpitude typically result in disbarment, even where an attorney has no prior disciplinary record.

The court further reasoned that public protection required a formal reinstatement proceeding before respondent could ever resume practice. Disbarment was therefore necessary to ensure that any future return to practice would occur only after a demonstrated showing of rehabilitation and fitness.

Sanctions

Conclusion

In the Matter of Myrdall underscores that cumulative misconduct—particularly when coupled with dishonesty toward courts and repeated client neglect—will result in the most severe professional sanction. The decision reflects the State Bar Court’s focus on public protection and the necessity of requiring a rigorous showing of rehabilitation before any return to practice.

Attorneys facing investigation or discipline before the California State Bar should seek experienced counsel early. East Bay Law P.C. represents attorneys in State Bar Court proceedings, reviews, and reinstatement matters.