In the Matter of John F. Farrell
(Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 490

Overview

Attorney John F. Farrell was found culpable of intentionally misleading a municipal court judge during trial and of failing to cooperate with the State Bar’s subsequent investigation. His misrepresentation concerned the service of a subpoena on a witness, which resulted in a contempt citation. The Review Department determined that Farrell’s conduct violated Business and Professions Code sections 6068(d) and 6106, and former Rule 7-105(1) (now Rule 5-200(B)) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court also found a violation of section 6068(i) for failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. Farrell’s prior record of discipline and the seriousness of the deception warranted a six-month actual suspension.

Facts of the Case

In March 1988, Farrell appeared in a Stanislaus County Municipal Court unlawful detainer trial on behalf of tenants alleging retaliatory eviction. During proceedings, Farrell told the judge that a defense witness, Dennis Chastain, was “under subpoena” but had not yet arrived. In fact, no subpoena had been served at that time. When Chastain eventually appeared at court later that day, Farrell hastily altered another subpoena form by crossing out a different name and substituting Chastain’s before handing it to him. Farrell then represented to the judge that the witness had been subpoenaed earlier.

The judge, believing Chastain was in contempt of a duly served subpoena, delayed the court calendar and initially treated Chastain as disobedient. Upon discovering that no subpoena had been issued until after Chastain’s arrival, the judge held Farrell in civil contempt and fined him $500. Farrell’s misconduct was later referred to the State Bar. He then failed to respond to State Bar inquiries and ignored requests for admission, which were deemed admitted and formed the basis of the findings of fact.

Charges and Culpability

Farrell was charged with (1) misleading a judge, (2) acts of dishonesty and moral turpitude, and (3) failure to cooperate in the Bar’s investigation. The Review Department confirmed the referee’s findings that Farrell knowingly made a false, material representation to the court and intentionally misled the judge, satisfying the elements of section 6068(d) and former Rule 7-105(1). His conduct also constituted an act of dishonesty under section 6106.

The Review Department distinguished these substantive violations from aggravating factors, holding that failure to cooperate with the Bar under section 6068(i) is itself a separate offense, not merely an aggravation. It further rejected the applicability of sections 6068(a) and 6103 as redundant in light of the specific statutory provisions already violated.

Mitigation and Aggravation

Mitigation evidence included Farrell’s testimony that he believed, based on his secretary’s statement, that the subpoena had been served before court. Although the deemed admissions were conclusive as to culpability, his testimony was accepted to show lack of intent to deceive. The Review Department gave limited mitigation credit for this good-faith misunderstanding but emphasized that attorneys are responsible for verifying such representations to the court.

Farrell also cited financial hardship, inexperience of office staff, and extensive low-income clientele, though these were found insufficient to mitigate discipline. The court held that inadequate staffing is not a defense to failure to supervise, citing Vaughn v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 847. Aggravation included his prior discipline, which consisted of a 1990 case involving client abandonment and conflicts of interest that resulted in a 90-day actual suspension.

Legal Analysis

The Review Department reiterated that to violate section 6068(d) or Rule 5-200(B), an attorney must knowingly make a false, material statement of fact or law to a court with intent to mislead. Materiality existed here because Farrell’s statement affected the court’s scheduling and wrongly subjected the witness to potential contempt. The court cited In the Matter of Conroy (1991) 53 Cal.3d 495 and In the Matter of Temkin (1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 321 to reaffirm that deceit toward the tribunal strikes at the heart of attorney integrity.

Although the referee initially recommended only three months’ actual suspension, the Review Department increased the discipline to six months actual suspension and two years stayed suspension with three years’ probation. It emphasized that honesty toward the judiciary is fundamental and that prior discipline for similar professional failings warranted heightened sanctions.

Outcome

The Review Department recommended a two-year stayed suspension, six-month actual suspension, and three years’ probation with standard conditions. Farrell was also ordered to complete a law office management course and attend State Bar Ethics School in lieu of retaking the Professional Responsibility Exam (PREX) already imposed in his prior case. The court required compliance with Rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.

Sanctions Table