In the Matter of Karen Goodson Pierce

Facts

Karen Goodson Pierce was admitted to the California State Bar in 1978. Her disciplinary history began with the abandonment of a single personal injury client. Pierce defaulted in that initial disciplinary proceeding and received a six-month stayed suspension and probation.

Pierce then violated probation and again defaulted in the ensuing disciplinary proceeding. As a result, she received six months of actual suspension and was ordered by the California Supreme Court to comply with former rule 955 of the California Rules of Court, requiring notice to clients and courts and the filing of a sworn affidavit of compliance.

Pierce failed to timely file the required rule 955 affidavit. After reminders from the probation department, she submitted the declaration 21 days late, stating that she had not practiced law and had no clients for more than three years. She then failed to appear at the hearing on the rule 955 referral.

The hearing judge found a wilful violation of rule 955 but recommended a one-year extension of probation rather than disbarment, citing Pierce’s lack of active clients and illness as the cause of delay. The Office of Trials sought review seeking disbarment.

By the time the Review Department considered the case, Pierce had defaulted yet again in a fourth disciplinary proceeding arising from further probation violations, demonstrating a continued pattern of ignoring State Bar proceedings and Supreme Court orders.

Charges

• Wilful failure to comply with former rule 955
• Failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings
• Violation of probation conditions imposed by the Supreme Court

Defenses

Pierce did not appear or file opposition on review. At the hearing level, she asserted that her late rule 955 declaration was due to illness and that she had no clients, arguing that disbarment would be disproportionate to the violation.

The hearing judge accepted that the delay was short and not in bad faith, but Pierce offered no evidence of rehabilitation or willingness to comply with future disciplinary requirements.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department rejected the hearing judge’s recommendation and held that disbarment was clearly appropriate. While a short delay in filing a rule 955 affidavit alone would not warrant disbarment, Pierce’s repeated defaults and failure to comply with successive Supreme Court orders demonstrated extreme indifference to the disciplinary system.

The court emphasized that bad faith is not required to establish a wilful violation of rule 955 and that an attorney is required to file a rule 955 affidavit whether or not the attorney has clients.

Given Pierce’s prior discipline, repeated probation violations, and continued inattention to official State Bar proceedings, the Review Department concluded that public protection and the integrity of the profession required disbarment.

Sanctions

Tags