In the Matter of Suzanne L. Harris

Facts

Suzanne L. Harris was admitted to the California State Bar in 1965 and had previously been disciplined by the California Supreme Court in 1990 for failing to communicate with and perform services for a client. The present disciplinary matter arose from her representation of Sys Dev, Inc. (“SDI”), a small software company facing an existential crisis in 1988.

SDI retained Harris to pursue emergency injunctive relief after a corporate officer attempted a hostile takeover and seized the company’s computers, source code, customer lists, and revenue stream. Harris agreed to prepare an injunction package, accepted an advance fee of $2,700, and outlined a plan to obtain declarations from witnesses. Initial steps were taken, including limited drafting of declarations.

However, after July 1988, Harris ceased meaningful communication with SDI. She failed to file any court papers, failed to complete the injunction application, and failed to return any portion of the unearned fees. At Harris’s request, SDI’s president loaned her his personal computer, printer, software, and cellular phone so she could prepare the legal filings. Harris never returned these items or SDI’s corporate records, despite repeated demands.

In 1989, SDI’s president filed a complaint with the State Bar. The State Bar investigator sent multiple written requests to Harris seeking a response. Harris failed to provide any written reply and did not meaningfully participate in the investigation.

Charges

• Failure to perform legal services and abandonment of a client
• Failure to communicate with a client
• Failure to return unearned fees
• Conversion of client property (moral turpitude)
• Failure to cooperate with a State Bar investigation

These acts constituted violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m), 6068(i), and 6106, as well as former Rules of Professional Conduct governing competence, withdrawal, safekeeping of client property, and honesty.

Defenses

Harris did not present live testimony or documentary evidence at trial. Her defenses were limited to statements made during her deposition and procedural arguments raised on review.

Substantively, Harris claimed that SDI owed her approximately $15,000 in legal fees and asserted that the computer and cellular phone were provided to her as payment for services. She did not produce any written fee agreement or documentation supporting this claim.

Procedurally, Harris argued that she did not receive adequate notice of hearings, that medical issues prevented her participation, that the hearing judge was biased, and that reference to her prior discipline in a pretrial statement was improper.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department rejected all procedural challenges, finding that Harris had been repeatedly notified of her obligation to maintain a current address with the State Bar and had been given multiple opportunities to participate. The court found no evidence of judicial bias or unfairness.

On the merits, the court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the hearing judge’s findings. Harris’s failure to perform services, failure to return unearned fees, and abandonment of SDI violated her duties to her client. Her retention of the computer and phone without written authorization constituted dishonest conduct and conversion, amounting to moral turpitude. Her failure to respond to State Bar investigators violated her statutory duty to cooperate.

Although the hearing judge recommended disbarment, the Review Department determined that disbarment was disproportionate. Considering Harris’s long career, the limited number of client matters involved, and guidance from California Supreme Court precedent, the court imposed a lengthy suspension with conditions rather than disbarment.

Sanctions