In the Matter of Duxbury (Review Dept. 1999)
In the Matter of Duxbury (Review Dept. 1999) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 61
The Review Department held that an attorney’s misdemeanor conviction for paying for client referrals involved moral turpitude based on the surrounding circumstances, and increased the recommended period of actual suspension after modifying mitigation findings.
Facts
Marc A. Duxbury was admitted to practice law in California in 1989. In 1994, he was contacted by a chiropractor who introduced him to a marketing agent offering to supply personal injury cases in exchange for payment. The “agent” was actually an undercover state investigator.
During recorded meetings, Duxbury agreed to pay $500 per referred client. The fee was framed as payment for “investigative services,” but evidence showed the amount was tied directly to client referrals rather than legitimate investigative work.
Duxbury received two cases through this arrangement and paid $1,000 from his personal account for one of them. He did not bill the clients for these payments. The referred clients later proved to be fictitious participants in a sting operation.
Duxbury pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor violation of Insurance Code section 750(a), which prohibits attorneys from compensating others for client referrals. Eight additional counts were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.
Charges & Legal Findings
- Misdemeanor conviction — Insurance Code §750(a) (capping)
- Business & Professions Code §6101 — conviction discipline
- Moral turpitude found based on surrounding circumstances
Court’s Analysis
The Review Department emphasized that the conviction itself was not a crime involving moral turpitude per se. However, disciplinary authorities may examine the surrounding facts and conduct to determine whether moral turpitude exists.
The court found that Duxbury knowingly entered into an arrangement to pay for referrals, attempted to conceal the relationship, and admitted he had participated in similar arrangements in the past. These facts demonstrated deliberate misconduct affecting professional fitness.
The court also noted that the purported investigative services were merely a subterfuge to disguise the true nature of the arrangement — payment for client referrals.
Aggravation & Mitigation
Aggravation
- Misconduct harmed the administration of justice
- Lack of full appreciation of wrongdoing
- Pattern suggesting prior similar arrangements
Mitigation
- No prior discipline
- Some good character evidence from judges and attorneys
- No subsequent misconduct
The Review Department reduced the weight of mitigation because the character evidence was limited and the time since misconduct was insufficient to establish rehabilitation.
Sanctions Table
| Category | Finding | Authority | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conviction | Paying for client referrals | Ins. Code §750(a) | Established discipline basis |
| Moral Turpitude | Facts showed deliberate scheme | B&P §§6100–6102 | Major discipline factor |
| Aggravation | Harm to administration of justice | Std. 1.2(b) | Increased suspension period |
| Mitigation | No prior discipline, character evidence | Std. 1.2(e) | Limited weight |
Outcome
The Review Department modified the hearing judge’s recommendation and imposed:
- Two-year stayed suspension
- Two years of probation
- Six months of actual suspension
The increased suspension reflected reduced mitigation and the seriousness of misconduct involving payment for client referrals.