Overview

Attorney Joshua M. Dale represented tenants in a civil negligence action arising from an apartment fire. The individual responsible for setting the fire, Darryl Geyer, had been convicted of second-degree murder and was pursuing an appeal challenging the voluntariness of his confession.

While Geyer was incarcerated and represented by criminal counsel, Dale repeatedly contacted him, developed a personal relationship, and ultimately secured a signed declaration admitting key facts about the fire. That declaration helped Dale obtain a $400,000 civil settlement.

The State Bar charged Dale with: (1) improper communication with a represented party, (2) moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code §6106, and (3) breach of fiduciary duty under §6068(a).

Rule 2-100 – Communication with Represented Party

The hearing judge found Dale violated Rule 2-100. However, the Review Department reversed that finding.

Because Geyer was not a “party” in the civil litigation—only a witness—the court held Rule 2-100 did not technically apply. The rule’s plain language limited it to communications with represented parties, not all represented persons.

Count One was dismissed.

Moral Turpitude – Business & Professions Code §6106

1. Gross Negligence and Overreaching

Dale was an experienced criminal attorney. He knew that obtaining a second confession from Geyer could be devastating if Geyer succeeded on appeal and faced retrial.

The court found this conduct constituted at least gross negligence, which is sufficient to establish moral turpitude under §6106.

2. Exploiting Vulnerability

Geyer was a young, incarcerated defendant with limited education. Dale:

• Used attorney-only jail access procedures
• Met privately with Geyer multiple times
• Provided gifts and encouragement
• Undermined Geyer’s confidence in his criminal attorneys

The court found Dale drove a wedge between Geyer and his counsel, encouraging him to disregard their advice.

3. Misleading Statements

Geyer testified Dale assured him the declaration would not affect his appeal. The court found that even if Dale believed the appeal would not be directly harmed, he failed to fully explain that the declaration could be used against Geyer in a retrial.

The Review Department held that:

“No distinction can be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact.”

At minimum, Dale created a false impression. That satisfied §6106.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty – §6068(a)

Although Dale was not Geyer’s attorney of record, the court found he created a confidential relationship by:

• Sending correspondence labeled “confidential legal correspondence”
• Signing letters “Joshua M. Dale, Esq.”
• Offering to represent Geyer at his parole hearing
• Providing legal advice about parole strategy

By assuming that role, Dale assumed fiduciary obligations.

He then breached those duties by prioritizing his civil client’s interests over Geyer’s criminal exposure.

The court reaffirmed that attorneys may be disciplined for breaching fiduciary duties even absent a formal attorney-client relationship.

Aggravation

• Multiple acts of wrongdoing
• Significant harm to the administration of justice
• Undermining the attorney-client relationship in a criminal case
• Failure to fully appreciate seriousness of misconduct

Mitigation

• No prior discipline
• Seven strong character witnesses (including attorneys)
• Professional reputation for honesty

Sanctions

Why This Case Matters

This decision underscores that even where a rule does not technically apply, attorney conduct may still constitute moral turpitude if it involves:

• Exploiting vulnerable individuals
• Undermining criminal defense representation
• Creating misleading impressions about legal consequences
• Assuming fiduciary obligations outside formal representation

Attorneys must exercise extreme caution when interacting with incarcerated individuals, particularly when those individuals are represented by counsel in related proceedings.