Overview

Attorney Marc Anthony Guillory was suspended for two years and required to prove rehabilitation after four alcohol-related driving convictions between 1999 and 2012. Three of these occurred while he was a practicing deputy district attorney. The Review Department found his conduct involved moral turpitude because he repeatedly attempted to use his position as a prosecutor to avoid arrest, lied to officers, drove with a suspended license, and violated probation. Despite successful professional performance, his repeated misconduct demonstrated disrespect for the law and lack of integrity inconsistent with the ethical duties of an attorney.

Background

• 1999: While in law school, Guillory crashed his vehicle after drinking, killing his cousin. He pled no contest to a “wet reckless” charge and promised the State Bar’s Moral Character Committee never to drink and drive again.
• 2007–2011: Guillory incurred three DUIs as a prosecutor:
  • 2007 (El Cerrito): BAC 0.18%. Drove recklessly; sentenced to two days in jail and three years’ probation.
  • 2009 (Oakland): BAC 0.15%. Drove on a suspended license while on probation; attempted to use his badge to influence officers.
  • 2011 (Martinez): BAC 0.24%. Found passed out in car with engine running in drive; on probation and suspended license; sentenced to 180 days of home detention and five years’ probation.
• In each arrest, Guillory displayed his prosecutor identification and asked officers to release him.
• After his third DUI, he was terminated from the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and opened a private practice.

Misconduct and Findings

• Moral Turpitude: Though misdemeanor DUIs are not per se moral turpitude, the circumstances—abuse of prosecutorial status, false statements, and repeated violations of law—met the definition of moral turpitude.
• Probation violations: He twice drove while on probation and with a suspended license.
• Dishonesty: Lied about his alcohol consumption and license conditions.
• Public endangerment: BACs of 0.18%, 0.15%, and 0.24% showed willful disregard for public safety.

Aggravation

• Multiple acts: Four separate alcohol-related convictions over 13 years.
• Indifference: Continued drinking and driving despite prior convictions and Bar warnings.
• Minimization: Denied role of alcohol in his cousin’s death and claimed “no harm” because no one else was injured.

Mitigation

• Personal hardship: Divorce, custody battle, and job stress were considered but did not outweigh misconduct.
• Limited sobriety evidence: Participation in Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) was inconsistent; relapsed during monitoring.
• No prior discipline: Six years of practice before first DUI, not enough for major mitigation.
• Character witnesses: Two attorneys testified; range too narrow for substantial weight.

Disciplinary Analysis

The court noted that attorney discipline is not punitive but aimed at protecting the public and maintaining professional integrity. Applying Standard 2.11(c) (misdemeanor involving moral turpitude), it held that disbarment or actual suspension was appropriate. Because Guillory’s conduct showed repeated recklessness but some potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a two-year actual suspension and required proof of rehabilitation before reinstatement.

Disposition

• Suspension: Three years stayed, with two years actual suspension and proof of rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and legal ability required before reinstatement.
• Probation: Four years with quarterly reports, ethics school, and compliance conditions.
• MPRE: Must pass during suspension.
• Rule 9.20: Required to notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel of suspension.
• Costs: Payable under Bus. & Prof. Code §6086.10.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Repeated DUI offenses, combined with dishonesty and misuse of official position, can constitute moral turpitude.
• The State Bar may consider pre-admission misconduct when assessing post-admission discipline.
• Participation in recovery programs must show consistent sobriety to mitigate discipline.
• Even absent client harm, repeated criminal behavior reflecting disrespect for the law threatens public confidence in the profession.