In the Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 907

Overview

This discipline case involved multiple instances of client neglect, failure to communicate, improper withdrawal, failure to refund unearned fees, trust account violations, and acts of moral turpitude arising from attempts to interfere with State Bar disciplinary investigations. The Review Department increased the level of discipline from the hearing judge’s recommendation and imposed a longer period of actual suspension.

Facts

Respondent Ronald E. Lais was admitted to practice in 1975 and committed misconduct in five client matters between 1991 and 1993. Across these matters, he failed to communicate with clients, failed to provide competent services, failed to return unearned fees promptly, mishandled client funds, improperly withdrew from representation, and attempted to condition refunds on the withdrawal of State Bar complaints.

In one matter, he accepted a $10,000 advance fee, continued working after termination, and offered to refund a portion of the fee only if the client withdrew a disciplinary complaint. In another matter, he failed to notify a client of a cross-complaint, did not respond to discovery, failed to appear at trial, and allowed a default judgment to be entered. In a third matter, he attempted to secure withdrawal of a State Bar complaint despite a direct warning from disciplinary investigators that such conduct constituted moral turpitude.

Key Misconduct Findings

• Failure to communicate with clients
• Failure to perform legal services competently
• Failure to return unearned fees promptly
• Improper withdrawal without court permission
• Failure to return client files
• Trust account violations
• Attempts to interfere with disciplinary investigations

Moral Turpitude Findings

The Review Department found acts of moral turpitude where respondent conditioned refunds of fees on the withdrawal of disciplinary complaints after receiving explicit warnings that such conduct was improper. The court held that attempting to thwart a disciplinary investigation constitutes conduct involving dishonesty and moral turpitude.

Aggravation

• Multiple acts of misconduct
• Interference with disciplinary investigation
• Failure to pay full restitution
• Pattern of neglect across multiple matters

Mitigation

• No prior disciplinary record
• Strong character testimony
• Extensive volunteer and pro bono work
• Practice reforms implemented

The court gave respondent’s mitigation significant weight but found it insufficient to offset the seriousness and pattern of misconduct.

Legal Principles

1. Conditioning refunds on complaint withdrawal is moral turpitude

Attempting to induce withdrawal of a State Bar complaint interferes with disciplinary proceedings and constitutes moral turpitude.

2. Failure to refund unearned fees promptly is a serious violation

Advance fees must be returned promptly upon termination unless they are true retainers.

3. Client communication duties are broad

An attorney must respond to client inquiries even when they relate to fee disputes.

4. Improper withdrawal creates multiple violations

Failing to obtain court permission and failing to protect client interests can result in overlapping rule violations.

Outcome

The Review Department recommended a two-year stayed suspension and three-year probation with a minimum 90-day actual suspension and continued suspension until restitution was paid.

Sanctions Table