Overview

In the Matter of Ike is a significant Review Department decision addressing both conviction-based discipline and fraudulent concealment during the bar admission process. The Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s dual recommendations that the Supreme Court either vacate the order admitting the respondent to the practice of law or, alternatively, disbar him. The decision underscores the absolute duty of candor owed by bar applicants and confirms that willful nondisclosure of material criminal matters constitutes fraud upon the Supreme Court.

Factual Background

Respondent Edmund C. Ike applied for admission to the California State Bar while attending law school. In January 1991, after filing his initial application but before admission, respondent was arrested and charged with eleven felony counts, including conspiracy, grand theft, and forgery, arising from thefts committed while he was employed as a payroll supervisor for a medical school. Despite a clear and continuing duty to update his moral character disclosures, respondent did not notify the Committee of Bar Examiners of his arrest or pending felony trial.

In February 1992, the criminal complaint was superseded by an information adding a special allegation of theft exceeding $25,000. Respondent nonetheless proceeded with the bar admission process and was admitted to practice law in June 1992. In March 1993, after his admission, respondent pled guilty to two felony counts: grand theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft. He was sentenced to ninety days in county jail, placed on probation, and ordered to pay restitution of $23,317.48, which he promptly paid.

Following his conviction, respondent properly reported the guilty plea to the State Bar as required by Business and Professions Code section 6068(o)(5). A conviction referral proceeding was then initiated under sections 6101 and 6102.

Failure to Disclose and Moral Character

The Review Department emphasized that bar applicants have an absolute and continuing duty to update moral character disclosures whenever material facts arise. Respondent’s arrest and pending felony trial were material facts that were required to be disclosed under the plain language of the application forms, which repeatedly warned applicants of this obligation.

The court found that respondent’s failure to disclose was willful, not negligent. The nondisclosure allowed respondent to be admitted to practice law without adequate consideration of his moral character, thereby constituting a fraud upon the Supreme Court. Under longstanding precedent, such fraud independently justified revocation of the order admitting respondent to the practice of law, without regard to the nature or outcome of the criminal case.

Conviction and Aggravating Circumstances

Independently, respondent’s felony convictions for theft and conspiracy to commit theft established a lack of honesty and trustworthiness and demonstrated initial unfitness to practice law. The facts surrounding the crimes were particularly aggravating. Respondent stole and cashed seventeen payroll checks while employed in a position of trust and while attending law school, obtaining more than $23,000 for himself.

Additional aggravation included multiple acts of misconduct, breach of fiduciary duties to an employer, concealment from the Committee of Bar Examiners, and respondent’s lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his actions. The Review Department rejected respondent’s attempt to characterize his conduct as entrapment or to rely on the leniency of his criminal sentence as mitigation.

Mitigation Analysis

The only mitigation found was respondent’s stipulation of facts, which demonstrated candor and cooperation during the disciplinary proceeding. The court declined to find mitigation based on restitution, reporting of the guilty plea, character testimony, or criminal sentencing, holding that compliance with statutory duties or criminal orders does not constitute mitigation.

Jurisdiction and Discipline Authority

Respondent argued that the State Bar Court lacked authority in a conviction referral proceeding to recommend license cancellation. The Review Department rejected this argument, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s inherent and plenary authority over attorney admissions and discipline. Even where statutes refer only to suspension or disbarment, the Supreme Court retains the power to cancel an attorney’s license where admission was procured by fraud.

Sanctions

Conclusion

In the Matter of Ike stands as a clear warning that the duty of candor in the bar admission process is absolute. Willful nondisclosure of material criminal matters constitutes fraud upon the Supreme Court and independently justifies license revocation. The decision further confirms that felony convictions involving theft and conspiracy, absent compelling mitigation, warrant the most severe professional consequences to protect the public and preserve confidence in the legal profession.

Attorneys facing conviction-based discipline, moral character challenges, or allegations of nondisclosure during the admission process should seek experienced counsel immediately. East Bay Law P.C. represents attorneys in State Bar Court proceedings, review matters, and reinstatement cases.