Facts

Gregory Dean Esau faced disciplinary action in California based on misconduct that originated in Washington. He was disciplined in Washington for retaining unearned fees and related issues.

As part of a California private reproval, and subsequent stayed suspension, Esau was required to comply with various conditions, including submitting quarterly reports and updating his address with the State Bar. He also was put in the MPRE.

Esau repeatedly failed to meet these requirements, and more specifically failed to follow California rules of court. Specifically 9.20

Procedural Posture

After multiple instances of non-compliance, the State Bar filed new disciplinary charges. The hearing judge recommended further leniency, but that was all changed. Thus, the court had a new ruling body.

Issue(s)

Did the hearing judge commit error when he recommended further leniency?

Holding

The Review Department reversed the hearing judge’s recommendation and ordered Esau’s disbarment. The seriousness and the facts meant there was very little to be changed in that and should he get nothing again.

Reasoning

The Review Department reasoned that Esau’s repeated failure to comply with probation conditions and court orders, coupled with his history of prior discipline and lack of significant mitigation, demonstrated a pattern of disregard for his professional obligations and warranted disbarment. The failure to listen over the prior actions was said to have made that be true and so all had to be done over again as the state said that it was not for it.

Practical Implications

• This case is a firm one, but all those similar should know, that it shows the point of not listening and what will happen.

Citations & Links

• In the Matter of Esau, (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 131