In the Matter of David Greene Lilly

Facts

David Greene Lilly was a member of the California State Bar who previously represented Martin Hiatt during Hiatt’s lifetime. Hiatt later executed a will appointing Lilly as executor of his probate estate. After Hiatt’s death, Lilly assumed control over the estate’s assets in his capacity as executor.

While serving as executor, Lilly embezzled more than $500,000 from the estate. The theft was not committed while Lilly was acting as the attorney for the estate—another lawyer served in that role— but rather while Lilly exercised fiduciary control as executor. Lilly was criminally prosecuted and convicted of grand theft by embezzlement, and as part of his sentence was ordered to make restitution exceeding $500,000.

The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel initially treated the felony as one not qualifying for summary disbarment because it did not occur in the practice of law. However, given the magnitude of the theft and Lilly’s prior attorney-client relationship with the decedent, the Review Department directed additional briefing and oral argument on whether the conviction satisfied the statutory criteria for summary disbarment.

Charges / Issues Presented

• Whether grand theft by embezzlement includes specific intent sufficient for summary disbarment
• Whether a crime committed outside the practice of law may qualify for summary disbarment
• Whether a deceased former client may be considered a “client victim” under Business & Professions Code § 6102(c)

Defenses

Lilly argued that summary disbarment was improper because the crime was committed solely in his capacity as executor and not in the practice of law. He asserted that neither the estate nor its beneficiaries were his clients at the time of the offense and that section 6102(c) should be narrowly construed to exclude crimes occurring outside active legal representation.

Lilly further relied on cases holding that not all criminal conduct by attorneys qualifies for summary disbarment and contended that any discipline should proceed through a full evidentiary hearing where mitigating circumstances could be considered.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department rejected Lilly’s arguments and recommended summary disbarment. The court held that grand theft by embezzlement necessarily includes specific intent to steal, satisfying the first statutory requirement of section 6102(c).

Although the crime was not committed in the practice of law, the court emphasized the alternative statutory ground for summary disbarment: whether the offense was committed “in any manner such that a client of the attorney was a victim.” The court concluded that this language is broad and includes former and deceased clients.

Because Lilly was appointed executor by a former client and gained access to the client’s assets through the trust and confidence arising from the attorney-client relationship, there was a clear nexus between the crime and the betrayal of that relationship. The court held that victimization of a client may occur even after the client’s death and even outside the practice of law.

Given the magnitude of the theft, the court further concluded that the Supreme Court would order disbarment regardless of any alleged mitigating circumstances. Summary disbarment was therefore appropriate.

Sanctions

Tags