In the Matter of Mason Harry Rose V (1994)
Overview
In the Matter of Rose is a leading Review Department decision analyzing three consolidated proceedings: a criminal conviction matter, a probation revocation matter, and a Rule 955 noncompliance matter. The case is frequently cited for its careful distinction between criminal conduct that does not involve moral turpitude and serious disciplinary violations arising from failure to comply with probation and reporting obligations.
Facts
Rose had an extensive disciplinary history. In a prior Supreme Court matter (Rose I), he was placed on five years of probation with two years of actual suspension, quarterly reporting requirements, and semi-annual client trust account audits. He complied with all probation conditions during his actual suspension but ceased filing required reports and audits once the actual suspension ended.
While still on probation, Rose was again disciplined (Rose II), receiving an additional stayed suspension and an order to comply with Rule 955. Despite receiving written notice of the deadline, Rose failed to timely file the Rule 955 affidavit, asserting that because he had not practiced law and had no clients, the affidavit served no purpose.
Separately, Rose was convicted of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, a misdemeanor. The evidence showed Rose reasonably believed his family was in danger due to repeated death threats from a former houseguest with a violent history. The hearing judge and Review Department concluded the conviction lacked any nexus to law practice and did not involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.
Charges
- Probation violations — failure to file quarterly reports and trust account audits
- Rule 955(c) — wilful failure to timely file affidavit of compliance
- Criminal conviction — alleged moral turpitude (dismissed)
Key Legal Findings
- Misdemeanor firearm conviction under the circumstances did not involve moral turpitude.
- Rule 955 affidavit is mandatory even when the attorney has no clients or active matters.
- Probation reporting obligations continue for the entire probation period, not only during actual suspension.
- Discipline in separate proceedings may run concurrently only to the extent periods overlap.
Aggravation and Mitigation
- Substantial prior record of discipline
- Multiple probation violations
- No harm to clients from Rule 955 delay
- Attempted filing of affidavit before awareness of Rule 955 proceeding
- Pro bono advocacy on behalf of disabled individuals
Discipline Imposed
| Proceeding | Discipline |
|---|---|
| Probation Revocation | Five years stayed suspension; five years probation; two years actual suspension |
| Rule 955 Violation | Two years stayed suspension; two years probation; nine months actual suspension |
| Concurrency | Discipline ordered to run concurrently to the extent periods overlap |
Key Takeaways
- Not all criminal convictions trigger attorney discipline.
- Probation conditions must be followed strictly and continuously.
- Rule 955 compliance is mandatory regardless of practice status.
- Prior discipline heavily influences sanction severity, even absent moral turpitude.
Facing Probation Revocation or Rule 955 Charges?
Probation violations and Rule 955 failures can escalate quickly into lengthy suspensions. If you are under investigation, contact East Bay Law P.C. for experienced California State Bar defense representation.