In the Matter of Jenkins
The Review Department upheld disbarment after an attorney and former judge engaged in systemic judicial corruption, including accepting bribes, soliciting perjury, and abusing judicial authority. The case also establishes key rules governing expedited reciprocal discipline under Business and Professions Code section 6049.1.
Facts
Leon Jenkins was admitted to practice in Michigan in 1979 and California in 1980. He later became a Michigan state trial judge. Between 1984 and 1987, he engaged in extensive judicial misconduct that ultimately resulted in his removal from the bench and revocation of his Michigan law license.
The Michigan Supreme Court found overwhelming evidence that Jenkins systematically sold his judicial office and public trust. He accepted bribes to dismiss traffic citations, improperly accepted gifts and favors from litigants, engaged in improper ex parte communications, and even solicited another person to commit perjury to conceal his misconduct.
Jenkins also signed a writ of habeas corpus to release a close friend without adequate information and misrepresented his residence to obtain reduced insurance premiums. Although he was prosecuted in federal court, he was not criminally convicted.
Following his Michigan discipline, California initiated expedited reciprocal discipline proceedings under Business and Professions Code section 6049.1.
Charges & Violations
- §6106 — Moral turpitude (judicial corruption and dishonesty)
- §6049.1 — Reciprocal discipline based on foreign jurisdiction revocation
Court’s Analysis
The Review Department held that a certified copy of another jurisdiction’s final disciplinary order conclusively establishes culpability in California unless the attorney proves that the misconduct would not warrant discipline in California or that the foreign proceedings lacked constitutional fairness.
Jenkins argued that Michigan used a lower burden of proof and that the statute was unconstitutional. The court rejected these arguments, finding overwhelming evidence of misconduct and concluding that section 6049.1 provides a valid streamlined disciplinary process.
The court emphasized that dismissal or acquittal of criminal charges does not bar attorney discipline based on the same underlying conduct.
Regarding discipline, the court found Jenkins’ misconduct exceptionally grave because it involved corruption of the judiciary and betrayal of public trust. His continued denial of wrongdoing also demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation.
Aggravation & Mitigation
Aggravation
- Systemic corruption of judicial office
- Harm to administration of justice
- Lack of remorse and denial of misconduct
Mitigation
- Community service and pro bono work
- Personal hardships and family tragedies
- Discipline-free California practice
Sanctions Table
| Violation | Conduct | Authority | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial Corruption | Accepted bribes and favors | §6106 | Primary discipline basis |
| Reciprocal Discipline | Foreign revocation binding | §6049.1 | Procedural holding |
| Dishonesty | Soliciting perjury | §6106 | Severe aggravation |
Outcome
The Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s recommendation and ordered disbarment, finding Jenkins’ corruption demonstrated a profound lack of fitness to practice law and a fundamental breach of public trust.