In the Matter of Elroy R. Giddens (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 25

Court: State Bar Court of California, Review Department | Date: March 27 & 29, 1990 | Judge: Stovitz, J. (opinion); joined by Pearlman, P.J., and Norian, J.

Charges Brought Against Petitioner

Elroy R. Giddens, a California attorney admitted in 1972, was disbarred in 1981 after a federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute amphetamines (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)). The Supreme Court found his criminal conduct to be serious and prolonged and ordered disbarment, holding that he could only seek reinstatement upon demonstrating his reattainment of fitness to practice law through “sustained exemplary conduct over an extended period of time.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6082.) His first petition for reinstatement was denied in 1986; the current petition, filed in 1989, was his second attempt to return to practice.

Defenses and Arguments

Giddens argued that he had rehabilitated himself through steady employment and community service. Since disbarment he had worked as a manager for roofing and paving companies and as a volunteer law clerk for the Legal Aid Society of Orange County. He passed the Professional Responsibility Examination and presented numerous character witnesses—including attorneys and a retired police officer—who testified to his honesty and integrity. A State Bar hearing referee found him qualified and recommended reinstatement.

Key Issues and Omissions

The Review Department, conducting an independent review under Rule 453 of the Rules of Procedure, found that Giddens omitted material information from his reinstatement application. He failed to disclose two lawsuits involving a customer, Connie Marangi—one small-claims case (Marangi v. Giddens) in which she prevailed and one superior court action (Ability Builders & Giddens v. Marangi) filed by Giddens seeking $100,000 in punitive damages for alleged slander and fraud. The court found his explanation—that the lawsuits were “misfiled” and forgotten—implausible, particularly given his experience as a law clerk and his prior denial for failing to disclose litigation. His “mistake” excuse was deemed inadequate and reflective of a continued lack of care and candor.

Findings on Rehabilitation and Fitness

The Review Department held that Giddens had not shown the “sustained exemplary conduct” required for readmission. While his legal knowledge and community involvement were commendable, his failure to disclose litigation and his questionable civil suit against a former customer undermined his claim of moral rehabilitation. The court emphasized that a petition for reinstatement is not a “paperwork exercise,” but a sworn representation to the Bar and the public that must be complete and candid. Giddens’s repeated omissions in two successive applications showed he had not developed the insight and reliability expected of a member of the profession.

Although the Review Department credited his legal competence and the referee’s favorable view of his witnesses, it re-weighed the evidence and found his petition materially incomplete. The court noted that Giddens’s intertwined business entities (Pavco, Pacific Paving & Coatings, and Ability Builders) and his suit against Marangi reflected a lack of care and judgment in matters related to truthfulness and professional responsibility. His explanations suggested continued defensiveness rather than insight into past misconduct.

Mitigation Evidence

Eight witnesses testified on Giddens’s behalf, praising his integrity, industry, and legal ability. He had maintained legal knowledge through research work for attorneys and regular study of legal publications. The Review Department acknowledged these factors but held that strong character testimony cannot substitute for a complete and truthful application. Because he had already been disbarred for moral turpitude, he was required to provide “stronger proof of present honesty and integrity than one seeking admission for the first time.”

Outcome

The Review Department denied Giddens’s petition for reinstatement. It found that although he possessed adequate learning and ability in the law, he failed to demonstrate the requisite rehabilitation and moral fitness. The court invited him to reapply after two years under Rule 662, encouraging a “complete, forthright petition” supported by demonstrated rehabilitation and continued legal learning.