In the Matter of Nicholas James Caplin (Review Dept. 2020) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 768
Court: California State Bar Court, Review Department
Judge: Honn, J.
Charges Brought Against
Attorney Nicholas James Caplin, admitted to practice in 2016, faced disciplinary proceedings following his misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol with an enhancement for a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.15 percent. On August 19, 2017, Caplin crashed his car into a parked vehicle while heavily intoxicated. At the scene, he falsely told police and neighbors that a friend named “Michael Fisher” had been driving and fled on foot. In truth, no such person existed. He was arrested and later pled guilty to the DUI with excessive BAC enhancement under Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and 23578.
The hearing judge initially found no moral turpitude, recommending a two-year stayed suspension with probation. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel sought review, arguing that Caplin’s fabricated story demonstrated dishonesty amounting to moral turpitude. The Review Department agreed and imposed a 30-day actual suspension, one-year stayed suspension, and probation.
Defenses
Caplin argued that his conduct did not involve moral turpitude, citing In re Kelley (1990) and In the Matter of Anderson (1992), both of which found that DUI offenses with limited misstatements did not establish dishonesty. He claimed his false statements were “drunken misrepresentations” made under intoxication rather than intentional deceit. Caplin maintained he was confused, not deceitful, and asserted that his conduct was not comparable to attorneys who intentionally misled authorities.
The Review Department rejected this defense. The panel found Caplin’s detailed and repeated lies—seven separate false statements identifying a fictitious driver—showed a conscious effort to evade responsibility and waste law enforcement resources. His conduct, the court held, constituted moral turpitude through deceit, and his intoxication did not negate intent. Caplin’s story was too coherent and persistent to be dismissed as a mere drunken lapse in judgment.
Mitigation
The Review Department credited substantial mitigation. Caplin had no prior discipline, fully cooperated with the State Bar, and demonstrated genuine remorse by self-reporting fault to his insurer and promptly reimbursing all damages. Before any disciplinary action began, he paid $2,260 to the property owner and $1,565 to the City of Carlsbad for emergency response costs, and later satisfied an additional $5,000 restitution order.
Caplin also presented good character evidence from attorneys, family, and friends who described him as conscientious and trustworthy. However, the panel assigned only moderate weight because not all witnesses were fully aware of his misconduct. The court awarded substantial mitigation for cooperation and remorse, emphasizing his compliance with probation, Alcoholics Anonymous attendance, and completion of a DUI program.
Outcome
The Review Department concluded that the totality of circumstances—driving under the influence, fabricating a detailed false narrative, and misleading police—constituted moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code section 6106. The panel distinguished Kelley and Anderson because Caplin’s deceit was elaborate, repeated, and directed at avoiding criminal liability.
Despite the moral turpitude finding, the court found no aggravation and extensive mitigation, determining that a 30-day actual suspension adequately protected the public. Caplin was ordered to complete State Bar Ethics School, abstain from alcohol, comply with probation conditions, and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) within one year. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions since the misconduct predated the effective date of Rule 5.137 authorizing such penalties.
The opinion underscores that while a DUI alone may not involve moral turpitude, deceit and misrepresentation to law enforcement elevate the offense to a disciplinary violation reflecting dishonesty and disregard for law. The final discipline: one-year stayed suspension, one year of probation, and 30 days of actual suspension.
Sanctions Table
| Rule/Statute Violated | Findings | Mitigation | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus. & Prof. Code §6106 | Moral turpitude through deceit to police following DUI accident | Remorse, restitution, cooperation, good character | 30-day actual suspension, one-year stayed suspension, probation |
| Veh. Code §§23152(a), 23578 | DUI with excessive BAC enhancement | No prior record, rehabilitation efforts | Same discipline |