Overview

In In the Matter of Kaplan, the Review Department addressed extensive, multi-year attorney misconduct involving incompetence, failure to communicate, trust account violations, and failure to cooperate with State Bar investigations. The case is notable for holding that habitual, reckless disregard of client interests can constitute moral turpitude even when the misconduct stems primarily from gross negligence rather than intentional dishonesty.

Facts

Robert Steven Kaplan was admitted to practice in California in 1979. Between 1986 and 1993, he engaged in widespread misconduct across numerous client matters. His violations included prolonged inaction, repeated failures to communicate with clients, mishandling trust funds, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

In multiple cases, Kaplan allowed lawsuits to languish for years, ignored settlement opportunities, failed to return client files, and failed to respond to repeated client inquiries. Several clients lost their legal claims entirely due to statutes of limitation expiring or cases being dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Kaplan also failed to properly distribute settlement funds and did not take appropriate steps to resolve competing claims to trust funds. In some matters, he ignored medical liens, failed to provide accountings, or delayed distribution of client funds for years.

The misconduct occurred across at least eight client matters over more than seven years and included failure to cooperate with State Bar investigations in fourteen matters.

Charges

• Repeated failure to perform legal services competently
• Failure to communicate with clients
• Failure to promptly release client files
• Failure to distribute trust funds
• Failure to render accounting of client funds
• Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations
• Conflict of interest without informed consent
• Moral turpitude

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Kaplan’s repeated negligent conduct constituted moral turpitude and what level of discipline was appropriate for a pervasive pattern of misconduct.

The Review Department held that an attorney’s habitual and reckless disregard of client interests can amount to moral turpitude, even when the misconduct results from gross negligence rather than intentional dishonesty.

Mitigation

• Some belated factual stipulations
• Claims of office management problems

The court gave minimal weight to mitigation. Office management problems and lack of experience were expressly rejected as mitigating factors.

Aggravation

• Pattern of misconduct over many years
• Multiple acts of wrongdoing
• Significant client harm
• Prior disciplinary record
• Failure to cooperate with State Bar investigations
• Indifference to consequences

Key Holding

Habitual reckless incompetence and disregard of client interests constitute moral turpitude. Where misconduct is widespread, ongoing, and likely to recur, disbarment is appropriate even absent intentional dishonesty.

Outcome

The Review Department rejected the hearing judge’s recommendation for suspension and instead recommended disbarment. The court found overwhelming aggravation and no meaningful mitigation.

Sanctions Table