In the Matter of Michael Philip Rubin (Review Dept. 2021) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 797

Court: California State Bar Court, Review Department

Judge: Honn, J.

Charges Brought Against

Attorney Michael Philip Rubin faced eleven counts of misconduct across three separate client matters. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel charged him with failure to obey a court order to pay sanctions, failure to report those sanctions, threatening to report opposing parties’ immigration status, mishandling client funds, and representing clients with conflicts of interest. The allegations included violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6103, 6068(o)(3), 6103.7, and 6106, and former Rules of Professional Conduct 4-100(A), 4-100(B)(4), and 3-310(C)(1).

Rubin’s misconduct involved trust account mismanagement, failure to promptly disburse client money, and improper use of his CTA for non-client funds. He also failed to report judicial sanctions imposed against him and made statements to opposing parties that could reasonably be interpreted as threats to report them to immigration authorities.

Defenses

Rubin argued that he did not willfully disobey court orders because the sanctions were not final and service was defective. He claimed ignorance of the duty to report sanctions, maintained that his immigration-related statements were not threats, and blamed his accounting problems on poor bookkeeping. The Review Department rejected these defenses, emphasizing that actual notice of a sanction order is sufficient for willfulness, ignorance of a statutory duty does not excuse a violation, and any suggestion of reporting immigration status violates section 6103.7. The panel further held that Rubin’s conflicts of interest were clear, as he represented clients with directly adverse financial positions without obtaining written informed consent.

Mitigation

The court credited limited mitigation for good character based on letters from friends and attorneys who viewed Rubin as professional and hardworking, though few had knowledge of his misconduct. He received no credit for cooperation beyond basic compliance and no mitigation for remorse, as he continued to minimize his conduct. Rubin’s prior discipline history — including a 1993 private reproval and a 1997 one-year actual suspension — weighed heavily in aggravation.

Outcome

The Review Department found Rubin culpable on eight counts and dismissed three for insufficient proof. Aggravating factors included multiple acts of misconduct, client harm, prior record, and indifference. The court applied Standard 1.8(b) (multiple prior disciplines) and concluded that disbarment was warranted due to Rubin’s pattern of ethical violations and his unwillingness to conform to professional standards.

The Review Department recommended that Rubin be disbarred and placed on inactive status pending Supreme Court order. The opinion underscores that repeated misconduct, even absent theft or severe client harm, will result in disbarment when an attorney’s pattern of defiance and dishonesty demonstrates unfitness to practice.

Sanctions Table

• judge-honn
• disbarment
• repeat-offense
• trust-accounting
• conflict-of-interest
• failure-to-report
• immigration-threat
• good-character
• prior-discipline