In the Matter of Deierling
(Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 552

Overview

Attorney John C. Deierling, admitted to practice in 1977, was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale under Health and Safety Code §11359. Although the hearing judge found moral turpitude and initially recommended suspension, the Office of Trials sought disbarment. The Review Department agreed moral turpitude was present but upheld the recommendation of suspension due to substantial mitigating factors, including Deierling’s rehabilitation from long-term drug and alcohol abuse.

Factual Background

Deierling was arrested in 1988 while tending approximately 25 mature marijuana plants in a grove in the El Dorado National Forest. Evidence indicated he had planted 40–70 seedlings, cultivating them using sophisticated methods to maximize potency and yield. The estimated street value of the mature crop exceeded $45,000. At arrest, he carried a loaded .357 Colt Python revolver, though he did not attempt to use it, and the arrest was peaceful.

A subsequent search of his home uncovered grow lights, irrigation equipment, marijuana seeds, scales, and books on cultivation. Police also found legally owned firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle. Deierling lived with his teenage sons, though there was no evidence they were exposed to drugs or involved in the offense.

As a criminal defense attorney, Deierling was well aware of narcotics laws and had represented numerous clients in similar cases. He testified that his use of marijuana began at age 13 and that by the late 1980s he was smoking regularly but did not consider himself impaired professionally. He admitted occasional alcohol binges and acknowledged a pattern of dependency on both substances.

Following his arrest, Deierling completed a 90-day inpatient recovery program and entered the “Other Bar” program for attorneys recovering from addiction. Witnesses testified he maintained sobriety and had made substantial rehabilitative progress.

Procedural History

After his conviction, the Supreme Court imposed interim suspension under Business and Professions Code §6102(a). The hearing judge found the conviction involved moral turpitude but recommended a four-year stayed suspension with four years’ probation and two years’ actual suspension (with up to one year credit for interim suspension). The State Bar examiner sought disbarment; Deierling did not appeal but objected to consideration of a 1982 marijuana-related diversion case.

Issues and Findings

The Review Department held that Deierling’s voluntary testimony regarding his 1982 cultivation and diversion was admissible since he waived objection and the evidence was used only to show a long-standing involvement with marijuana, not as a disciplinary predicate.

While rejecting the hearing judge’s finding that the conviction itself inherently involved moral turpitude, the Review Department affirmed that the facts and circumstances of the case did. Deierling’s cultivation was deliberate, commercial, and profit-oriented, reflecting awareness of illegality and moral turpitude.

Mitigation and Aggravation

Mitigation: Deierling demonstrated substantial rehabilitation. His addiction contributed to the misconduct, and he completed recognized treatment programs with evidence of continued sobriety. The Review Department emphasized that complete rehabilitation is not required for mitigation so long as genuine progress is demonstrated. His offense was not connected to client representation, he made no profit, and the marijuana quantity was modest compared to more serious precedents.

Aggravation: The presence of firearms was noted but not deemed aggravating, as the weapons were legally possessed and never used threateningly. His limited lack of candor was considered immature rather than dishonest. No evidence showed his children were exposed to illegal conduct.

Legal Analysis

The Review Department applied Standard 3.2 of the Attorney Sanctions Standards, which prescribes disbarment for convictions involving moral turpitude absent compelling mitigation. The panel—Judges Stovitz, Pearlman, and Norian—found that Deierling’s rehabilitation and personal recovery from addiction were sufficiently compelling to justify suspension instead.

The opinion compared the case to In re Kreamer (1975) 14 Cal.3d 524, where suspension was imposed for two marijuana sales, and to In re Passino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163, where disbarment followed extensive trafficking and juror misconduct. Deierling’s conduct, while serious, was markedly less egregious and lacked client harm or systemic corruption.

Holding and Discipline

The Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s recommendation with modification to reflect the extended interim suspension caused by the examiner’s review. The final discipline imposed was:

• Four-year suspension, stayed
• Four years of probation
• Thirty months of actual suspension (retroactive to May 19, 1989)
• Proof of rehabilitation and fitness required under Standard 1.4(c)(ii)
• Mandatory passage of the California Professional Responsibility Exam

The panel declined to reimpose Rule 955 compliance since Deierling had already been ordered to comply at interim suspension. The court concluded that public protection and professional integrity were adequately served by this sanction.

Sanctions Table