In the Matter of Hindin (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 657
Facts
Originating area of law: Civil litigation and client representation. Respondent filed multiple meritless pleadings in federal court, repeatedly ignored judicial orders, and made false statements in verified filings. His actions led to sanctions against both him and his client.
In addition, respondent failed to pay the sanctions ordered by the court and was cited for contempt. The misconduct reflected a pattern of disrespect toward the tribunal and failure to obey court orders. The Review Department agreed that the record established deliberate misuse of the judicial process for harassment and delay.
Charges and Proceedings
Hindin was charged with violating Business & Professions Code §6103 (willful disobedience of court orders) and Rule 5-200(B) and (C) (false statements and misleading conduct toward a tribunal). The Review Department affirmed that respondent’s conduct demonstrated bad-faith litigation tactics and a conscious disregard of his duties as an officer of the court.
Sanctions Table
| Charge | Defense / Explanation | Mitigation | Aggravation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| False statements and frivolous pleadings | Claimed zealous advocacy and reliance on client information; denied intent to mislead. | No prior discipline; long career with community involvement. | Pattern of filings showing disregard for truth and judicial authority. | Culpable—violations of Rules 5-200(B),(C). |
| Willful disobedience of court orders | Argued orders were void and sanctions unjust; rejected by both state and federal courts. | Cooperative during State Bar investigation; expressed belated remorse. | Multiple unremedied orders; harm to court integrity and client interests. | Culpable—violation of §6103; significant aggravation for defiance of authority. |
| Overall discipline | Requested public reproval only; court found suspension necessary for protection of public and courts. | Limited mitigation as above. | Aggravated by pattern and harm. | Two-year stayed suspension, two years’ probation, and six-month actual suspension; completion of Professional Responsibility Exam required. |
Result and Significance
The Review Department imposed a two-year stayed suspension with two years of probation and an actual suspension of six months. The decision underscores that persistent disregard of court orders and misrepresentations to tribunals constitute serious misconduct even when the attorney believes his cause is just. The opinion stresses that zeal is not a defense to willful disobedience or dishonesty in litigation.
Tags
Citation: In the Matter of Hindin (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 657.