In the Matter of Charles Clinton Hunter (1994)
Overview
The Review Department disbarred Charles Clinton Hunter after consolidating a probation revocation proceeding with two original disciplinary matters arising from multiple criminal defense representations. The case is notable for its detailed analysis of default discipline, probation revocation standards, and the escalation to disbarment based on extreme indifference to court orders and the disciplinary process.
Facts
Hunter was admitted to practice in 1980 and was already on disciplinary probation following prior misconduct, including trust account violations and practicing while suspended. The Supreme Court had imposed a stayed three-year suspension with probationary conditions requiring reporting, cooperation with a probation monitor, and maintenance of a current State Bar address.
Hunter violated those probation conditions almost immediately by failing to file required quarterly reports, failing to meet with his probation monitor, and failing to keep his address current. These failures prevented the State Bar from monitoring his compliance and formed the basis for probation revocation.
In addition, Hunter committed extensive misconduct in four separate criminal matters (Miranda, Carlon, Reyes, and Tami). Across these cases, he repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled hearings, ignored court orders, failed to file pleadings, caused bench warrants to issue against clients, and was personally held in contempt multiple times. In one matter, his failure to appear while suspended resulted in his own arrest and incarceration. In another, he accepted $5,500 in advanced fees and failed to refund $5,000 that was unearned after he was relieved as counsel.
Hunter defaulted in all disciplinary proceedings by failing to answer the notices to show cause. Despite repeated warnings and opportunities, he failed to timely seek relief from default and attempted to participate only after defaults were entered, demonstrating a lack of respect for the disciplinary process.
Charges
- Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6068(b), 6068(k), 6103
- Failure to perform legal services competently (Rule 3-110)
- Failure to refund unearned fees (Rule 3-700(D)(2))
- Violation of disciplinary probation conditions
Defenses
Hunter sought relief from default, arguing procedural grounds and requesting late participation. The Review Department rejected these arguments, finding his delay unjustified and well outside the period for seeking relief. No substantive defense to the misconduct was presented.
Aggravation and Mitigation
- Multiple acts of misconduct across several criminal matters
- Prior discipline and ongoing probation at the time of new misconduct
- Significant harm to clients and the administration of justice
- Lack of candor, lack of remorse, and indifference to the disciplinary process
- None found
Discipline Imposed
| Proceeding | Result |
|---|---|
| Probation Revocation | Three-year actual suspension (entire stayed suspension imposed) |
| Original Disciplinary Matters | Disbarment |
Key Takeaways
- Repeated failure to appear in criminal cases is treated as serious misconduct warranting disbarment.
- Defaulting in disciplinary proceedings is itself an aggravating factor.
- Probation violations tied to the original misconduct justify imposition of the full stayed suspension.
- Attorneys suspended from practice must still appear in court and accurately advise the court of their status.
Facing Discipline or Probation Revocation?
If you are under State Bar investigation or facing probation revocation, early representation is critical. Contact East Bay Law P.C. for experienced California State Bar defense.