In the Matter of Heroico M. Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32
Facts
Respondent Heroico M. Aguiluz represented Aurora and Charles Macawile, owners of a residential care facility whose license had been suspended by the Department of Social Services (DSS). After filing a response and obtaining continuances, Aguiluz withdrew from representation without notice, leaving his clients unrepresented while falsely assuring them he was still their attorney. He refused to release their case file until they paid additional fees and signed a substitution of attorney form.
Aguiluz’s misconduct occurred soon after his son’s tragic murder, a fact later considered in mitigation. He was found to have violated former Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 2-111(A)(2) by failing to perform legal services competently and withdrawing in a manner prejudicial to his clients’ interests.
Procedural Background
The hearing judge recommended a one-year stayed suspension, two years’ probation, and restitution. Aguiluz sought review, alleging procedural error, judicial bias, and lack of evidence. The Review Department rejected these claims, found the hearing fair, and largely affirmed the findings — modifying aggravation and increasing mitigation. Additional probation conditions were imposed requiring Aguiluz to complete State Bar Ethics School and a law office management course.
Sanctions Table
| Violation | Findings | Mitigation | Aggravation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment of clients | Withdrew from representation in DSS proceeding without notice; withheld client files. | No prior discipline; emotional trauma from son’s murder; long community service. | Client harm; lack of recognition of misconduct. | Culpable under former Rules 6-101(A)(2) & 2-111(A)(2). |
| Failure to communicate | Did not notify clients of withdrawal or hearing status; gave misleading assurances. | Emotional distress mitigated dishonesty; otherwise cooperative demeanor at trial. | Delay and harm to clients’ administrative defense. | Violation found; included within prejudicial withdrawal. |
| Procedural defenses (bias, delay) | Claims of unfair delay and bias rejected; no prejudice shown. | Respondent self-represented; sincere but mistaken belief in innocence. | None established. | Challenges denied; findings affirmed. |
| Failure to release files | Refused to return client records pending further fees and substitution signature. | None significant. | Harm to clients and obstruction of new counsel. | Aggravating factor supporting discipline. |
| Final Discipline | Pattern of neglect in a single matter with moderate client harm. | Emotional hardship; public service; no prior record. | Failure to appreciate seriousness of conduct. | One-year suspension (stayed), two years probation, restitution of $567, ethics and management courses. |
Holding and Significance
The Review Department held that abandoning clients and withholding their files constitutes misconduct even in isolated cases. While Aguiluz’s emotional distress mitigated the seriousness, his lack of recognition of wrongdoing warranted structured probation and remedial education. The decision reinforced that attorneys must withdraw in a manner that protects client interests and maintain adequate office systems to prevent ethical lapses.
Tags
Citation: In the Matter of Heroico M. Aguiluz (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 32.