In the Matter of McCray (1991)

Citation: 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 373
Court: State Bar Court, Review Department
Judges: Stovitz, J.; Pearlman, P.J.; Norian, J.

Background and Facts

This case concerned Otis G. McCray, a disbarred attorney petitioning for reinstatement to the California Bar. McCray was disbarred by the California Supreme Court in 1981 following his conviction for two counts of grand theft and one count of forgery arising from an insurance fraud scheme. Along with his law partner, McCray paid others to stage automobile accidents, falsified medical and damage reports, and presented fraudulent claims to insurers. Losses totaled roughly $15,000–$17,000.

Following his disbarment, McCray filed multiple unsuccessful petitions for reinstatement — in 1983, 1985, and again in 1988. The present decision concerns his third petition, which the State Bar Court denied based on findings of omission, false testimony, and misleading conduct. Although McCray presented some evidence of rehabilitation, the Review Department concluded that he failed to demonstrate moral fitness or legal learning sufficient for reinstatement.

Deficiencies in the Petition

McCray’s reinstatement petition was found to be materially incomplete and inaccurate. He listed himself as “single” despite being married, omitted multiple outstanding debts, and failed to disclose his participation in at least eleven civil lawsuits. He also failed to provide information about his legal learning or continuing education activities. The Review Department emphasized that such a petition is a sworn declaration and must be complete and candid, as it serves as an applicant’s formal presentation to the legal community and the public.

False Testimony and Misleading Conduct

McCray gave false testimony under oath by claiming that he had reached arrangements to pay off debts to creditors such as West Publishing and Mitsui Bank. Witnesses from those institutions contradicted his claims, confirming that he made little or no payment and had not negotiated repayment agreements. In addition, McCray placed a newspaper advertisement in the Los Angeles Sentinel titled “A Public Apology,” in which he referred to himself as “Attorney at Law” and implied that his “five-year disbarment” had expired — although disbarment is indefinite. The court found that while the advertisement acknowledged his disbarment, his use of the title “Attorney at Law” was inappropriate and inconsistent with the required standard of candor.

Rehabilitation Evidence

The referee found limited evidence of rehabilitation. McCray showed remorse, maintained steady employment as a public defender’s law clerk, and made restitution to victims of his original misconduct. However, character witnesses — including attorneys and judges who signed a form petition supporting reinstatement — were largely unfamiliar with the details of his misconduct or omissions. Many testified they would reconsider their opinions if fully informed. Moreover, McCray had two post-disbarment criminal convictions: one for a Labor Code violation (issuing nonnegotiable wage checks) and another for driving under the influence while carrying a concealed firearm.

Learning and Ability in the Law

McCray claimed to have maintained his legal knowledge through seminars, legal publications, and informal discussions with colleagues at the public defender’s office, but produced no written work, briefs, or documentation. The Review Department found this inadequate to demonstrate legal proficiency. Witnesses who testified to his knowledge limited their observations to criminal law, offering only general impressions of competence.

Findings and Reasoning

• McCray’s omissions regarding his financial obligations and lawsuits showed a lack of candor required for reinstatement.
• His false testimony about debt arrangements constituted a failure of honesty under oath.
• His self-identification as an “attorney at law” in pleadings and advertisements was improper, though not enough to prove he practiced unlawfully.
• Favorable character testimony was insufficient to overcome negative evidence of lack of candor and incomplete disclosures.
• He failed to demonstrate learning and ability in the general law.

Outcome

The Review Department concluded that McCray did not meet the burden of showing his rehabilitation, present moral fitness, or competence in the law. His petition for reinstatement was denied. The court emphasized that reinstatement demands “sustained exemplary conduct” and full candor — standards McCray had not met despite years since disbarment.

Sanctions Table

Tags