Overview

This 2017 opinion concerns Leo Joseph Moriarty, Jr., a California attorney facing his third disciplinary proceeding. He was found culpable of moral turpitude for misrepresentations made to an administrative tribunal (Office of Administrative Hearings, or OAH) and for failing to correct false statements made on his behalf. The Review Department expanded on the hearing judge’s findings, concluding that Moriarty’s repeated dishonesty, defiance of tribunal orders, and failure to report sanctions warranted disbarment under Standard 1.8(b) of the Attorney Sanctions Standards, given his two prior disciplinary records involving actual suspensions.

Key Facts

• Moriarty represented two former Bell City Council members, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal, in administrative hearings before the OAH concerning retirement benefits.
• In both matters, Moriarty’s assistant falsely told the tribunal that Moriarty was hospitalized, which led to continuances based on fabricated medical emergencies.
• Moriarty received and read tribunal orders referencing his supposed hospitalization but failed to correct the record or provide medical proof as required.
• He later ignored OAH orders to pay sanctions totaling over $4,000 and failed to report these judicial sanctions to the State Bar.
• This misconduct occurred despite two prior disciplinary suspensions (in 2000 and 2010) for similar conduct involving dishonesty and client neglect.

Issues Presented

• Whether Moriarty’s failure to correct false statements constituted moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code §6106.
• Whether an attorney’s failure to comply with OAH orders violates §6103, despite OAH being an administrative agency rather than a court of record.
• Whether failing to report administrative sanctions to the State Bar violates §6068(o)(3).
• Whether repeated dishonesty after prior discipline mandates disbarment under Standard 1.8(b).

Holding and Reasoning

• The Review Department affirmed that moral turpitude includes false or misleading statements made to a court or administrative tribunal, even through gross negligence.
• It found that Moriarty’s assistant’s false claims about hospitalizations, which Moriarty failed to correct, amounted to ratified deceit and moral turpitude.
• He was also found to have intentionally misled the tribunal in a second instance by approving false written statements regarding an angiogram that never occurred.
• The court held that OAH orders are equivalent to court orders under §6103 and must be obeyed by attorneys.
• Sanctions issued by administrative agencies in a quasi-judicial capacity are deemed “judicial sanctions” and must be reported to the State Bar under §6068(o)(3).
• Given Moriarty’s two prior disciplinary suspensions, repeated dishonesty, and lack of insight, disbarment was the only sanction sufficient to protect the public and preserve confidence in the legal system.

Aggravation and Mitigation

• Aggravation: Two prior records of discipline; multiple acts of wrongdoing; harm to the administration of justice; indifference and lack of remorse.
• Mitigation: Limited credit for cooperation through stipulations; no credible evidence of health-related or emotional impairment.
• Net Effect: Aggravation significantly outweighed mitigation, triggering mandatory disbarment under Standard 1.8(b).

Sanctions & Disposition Table

Notes: The Review Department emphasized that this was Moriarty’s third disciplinary case and that his pattern of dishonesty and disregard for ethical duties demonstrated an ongoing danger to the public and the legal profession.

Tags