Overview

In In the Matter of Myrdall, the State Bar Court Review Department considered an extensive disciplinary record involving widespread misconduct by attorney Sheryll Layne Myrdall over the course of many years. Although the hearing judge recommended a lengthy stayed suspension with probation and an actual suspension, the Review Department concluded that the seriousness, scope, and persistence of the misconduct required disbarment to protect the public.

Factual Background

Respondent was admitted to the California State Bar in 1979 and had no prior discipline. Beginning only a few years after admission, however, she engaged in misconduct across at least twelve separate client matters. The misconduct spanned much of her legal career and involved repeated failures of competence, diligence, honesty, and compliance with basic professional obligations.

The record showed that respondent repeatedly failed to perform required legal tasks, including filing inventories, accountings, pleadings, and motions in a timely manner. In several matters, she allowed statutes of limitation to lapse, failed to appear at scheduled hearings and trials, and neglected to consummate settlements or advance her clients’ objectives. Clients and successor counsel frequently complained that respondent did not return telephone calls, ignored correspondence, and failed to keep clients reasonably informed of case developments.

Particularly serious were multiple instances in which respondent deliberately made false statements to courts. In declarations submitted in different cases, she represented that filings had been made, service completed, hearings scheduled, or notices not received, when those statements were untrue. The Review Department credited the hearing judge’s credibility findings rejecting respondent’s explanations and concluded that the false statements were intentional rather than the product of mistake or confusion.

Respondent also repeatedly failed to promptly return client files after being discharged, improperly conditioned delivery of files on execution of substitution forms, mishandled advanced costs by failing to keep them in trust, and undertook or continued representations despite lacking sufficient time and resources to competently complete the work.

Rules and Statutes Violated

The Review Department found violations of multiple provisions of the Business and Professions Code and former Rules of Professional Conduct, including:

• Business and Professions Code section 6106 (moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption);
• Business and Professions Code section 6068(d) (duty of truthfulness to the court);
• Former rule 6-101 / 6-101(A)(2) (failure to perform legal services competently);
• Former rule 2-111(A)(2) (failure to take reasonable steps to avoid prejudice upon termination, including prompt return of files);
• Former rule 7-105 (misleading statements to a court); and
• Related trust-account and conflict provisions in specific matters.

Moral Turpitude and Pattern of Misconduct

The Review Department emphasized that moral turpitude does not require an intent to defraud; gross negligence or a habitual disregard of clients’ interests can suffice. Here, respondent’s repeated failures of competence and diligence across numerous matters, combined with her deliberate misrepresentations to courts, constituted a pervasive pattern of misconduct involving moral turpitude.

The court stressed that respondent’s misconduct began early in her career and continued for more than seven years. This temporal scope, together with the number of affected clients and matters, demonstrated that the misconduct was not isolated or aberrational.

Aggravation and Mitigation

Significant aggravating factors were present, including multiple acts of misconduct, harm to clients, harm to the administration of justice, and uncharged violations demonstrating a broader pattern of professional disregard. Although respondent presented some character testimony and evidence of personal difficulties, the Review Department gave this mitigation limited weight. The references did not represent a broad cross-section of the legal and general community, and the mitigation was insufficient to offset the seriousness of the misconduct.

Discipline Analysis

While the hearing judge recommended a stayed suspension with probation and an actual suspension conditioned on restitution and rehabilitation, the Review Department concluded that this recommendation understated the gravity of the case. Citing prior disciplinary precedent, the court noted that cases involving widespread, serious misconduct and moral turpitude typically result in disbarment, even where an attorney has no prior record.

The court further reasoned that public protection required a formal reinstatement proceeding before respondent could ever resume practice. Disbarment was therefore necessary to ensure that any future return to practice would occur only after a demonstrated showing of rehabilitation and fitness.

Sanctions

Conclusion

In the Matter of Myrdall stands as a significant example of how cumulative misconduct, particularly when coupled with dishonesty toward courts and repeated client neglect, can result in the ultimate professional sanction. The decision underscores that even attorneys with no prior discipline may face disbarment when their conduct demonstrates a sustained inability or unwillingness to meet fundamental ethical obligations.

Attorneys facing investigation or discipline before the California State Bar should seek experienced counsel as early as possible. East Bay Law P.C. represents attorneys in State Bar Court proceedings, reviews, and reinstatement matters.