In the Matter of Myrland
(Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 490

Overview

Attorney Richard A. Myrland was disciplined for repeated failures to perform legal services, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to refund unearned fees in two separate client matters. The Review Department found violations of Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) and 6103, and former Rules of Professional Conduct 6-101(A)(2) (failure to perform competently) and 2-111(A)(3) (failure to return unearned fees). The court increased discipline recommended by the hearing department, emphasizing that Myrland’s repeated neglect and lack of remorse demonstrated indifference to client welfare.

Facts of the Case

In 1986 and 1987, Myrland was retained by two clients for unrelated civil matters — a landlord-tenant defense and a small-business dispute. In the first matter, he accepted a $750 retainer to defend a tenant but failed to file any responsive pleading or appear at hearings, resulting in default judgment. The client was forced to vacate the premises and incurred damages exceeding $3,000. In the second matter, involving a contractual collection claim, Myrland again failed to act after accepting a $500 retainer and ignored repeated client inquiries. Both clients filed complaints with the State Bar.

Myrland’s neglect extended to his failure to respond to certified letters from the clients and the Bar. He moved offices without notifying the State Bar, causing delays in investigation. The hearing referee found that his conduct showed “a pattern of disinterest and disregard for professional duties.” Although no evidence of intentional misappropriation appeared, the Review Department concluded that his persistent neglect and indifference to client communications violated his duty to perform competently and to return unearned fees.

Charges and Violations

• Failure to perform legal services with competence (Rule 6-101(A)(2))
• Failure to refund unearned fees upon withdrawal (Rule 2-111(A)(3))
• Failure to communicate with clients (Bus. & Prof. Code §6068(m))
• Failure to obey State Bar requirements (Bus. & Prof. Code §6103)

Aggravation and Mitigation

Aggravation: The Review Department found a pattern of misconduct across multiple clients, significant harm caused by neglect, and failure to cooperate with the Bar’s investigation. Myrland’s indifference and lack of restitution were given substantial aggravating weight.
Mitigation: He had practiced for nearly ten years without prior discipline. No evidence of bad faith, fraud, or intent to harm was found, though his continued failure to respond to client complaints offset much of this mitigating value.

Legal Reasoning

The Review Department reiterated that repeated failure to perform legal services and communicate with clients, even without intent to defraud, undermines public confidence in the profession and warrants actual suspension. The court emphasized that section 6068(m) imposes a continuous obligation to keep clients reasonably informed, while Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 2-111(A)(3) address both competence and the fiduciary duty to refund unearned fees.

Citing McMorris v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 77 and Stanley v. State Bar (1990) 50 Cal.3d 555, the court concluded that persistent neglect, even absent dishonesty, justifies actual suspension where client harm results. Because Myrland failed to cooperate and made no restitution, the Review Department increased the discipline recommended by the hearing judge.

Outcome

The Review Department imposed a two-year stayed suspension, with six months actual suspension and two years probation subject to conditions including: restitution to both clients, completion of the State Bar Ethics School, and proof of passage of the Professional Responsibility Examination (PREX). The court warned that any further neglect or non-communication would result in disbarment.

Sanctions Table