In the Matter of Alfred Morriss Miller

Facts

Alfred Morriss Miller was admitted to the California State Bar in 1939 and practiced law for approximately thirty-seven years without discipline. In 1976, Miller became the executor of a probate estate (the Barthorpe Estate). Over a period of several years, he misappropriated approximately $86,250 from the estate, using the funds to finance an extravagant lifestyle that included travel, art purchases, and antiquities.

In 1982, the trustee of the estate objected to Miller’s final accounting. After failing to comply with a stipulated payment obligation, Miller admitted his misconduct to the probate court and to the State Bar. The probate court ordered Miller to pay more than $232,000, including interest, surcharges, fees, and costs. Miller secured the obligation with deeds of trust and personal property interests and fully repaid the estate by 1986.

Miller voluntarily wound up his law practice, became an inactive member of the State Bar, and resigned with disciplinary charges pending. His resignation became effective in January 1986. Thereafter, Miller worked as a paralegal for his son, performed limited pro bono and volunteer work, and handled small fiduciary matters without incident.

In 1991, Miller filed a petition for reinstatement. A hearing judge recommended reinstatement, finding Miller credible and concluding that he had demonstrated rehabilitation and present moral qualifications. The Office of Trials sought review, arguing that Miller had not met his heavy burden and had improperly held himself out as entitled to practice law.

Charges / Issues Considered

• Whether petitioner proved rehabilitation and present moral qualifications
• Whether restitution compelled by court order could support rehabilitation
• Whether petitioner improperly held himself out as practicing law after resignation

Defenses and Evidence of Rehabilitation

Miller relied on extensive evidence of rehabilitation, including full restitution, voluntary resignation, cooperation with the probate court and State Bar, curtailment of excessive spending, and sustained exemplary conduct over many years.

He presented testimony from attorneys, a municipal court judge, and a state appellate justice, as well as reference letters attesting to his integrity, remorse, and rehabilitation. Miller also emphasized that his post-resignation work as a paralegal did not involve the practice of law and that he took steps to ensure clients were not misled.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department independently reviewed the record and gave great weight to the hearing judge’s favorable credibility findings. The court held that an attorney who resigns with disciplinary charges pending bears a heavy burden in seeking reinstatement and must present overwhelming proof of reform.

The court concluded that Miller met this burden. Restitution, even when compelled by court order, was entitled to significant weight given Miller’s attitude, sincerity, and cooperation. His admission of wrongdoing, lifestyle changes, postmisconduct conduct, and character evidence supported a finding of rehabilitation.

Although Miller’s use of the word “retiring” when notifying clients was evasive and his continued employment as a paralegal for his son raised legitimate concerns, the court found no credible evidence that he practiced law or misled the public after resignation. On balance, these factors did not defeat his showing of present moral qualifications.

Comparing Miller’s case with other reinstatement decisions, the Review Department concluded that his showing was as strong as, or stronger than, petitioners who had been granted reinstatement. Reinstatement was therefore recommended.

Sanctions / Outcome

Tags