In the Matter of Respondent BB (Review Dept. 2021) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 835

Court: California State Bar Court, Review Department

Judge: McGill, J.

Charges Brought Against

The respondent, a new San Francisco County Deputy Public Defender, faced three counts of misconduct arising from two courtroom incidents in 2017. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel alleged violations of Business and Professions Code §§ 6068(b) (duty to maintain respect for the courts) and § 6103 (disobedience of a court order). The first count stemmed from disrespectful comments made to Judge Roger Chan during jury selection, including telling the court it “lacked backbone” and repeatedly declaring he did not respect the ruling. The second incident involved disobeying Judge Ross Moody’s order to step away from a client being remanded into custody, during which the respondent stated he was “embarrassed for the court.” The judge found him in direct contempt for failure to obey.

Defenses

Respondent argued that his behavior arose from passionate advocacy and frustration over perceived judicial unfairness. He claimed his belief that Judge Moody’s remand order was illegal justified his brief noncompliance. The Review Department rejected these defenses, finding that even honest disagreement with a judge does not excuse disrespectful conduct or defiance of a court order. The court emphasized that attorneys must maintain decorum at all times, regardless of emotion or client advocacy.

Mitigation

The Review Department found no aggravating circumstances and substantial mitigation in several areas. First, respondent demonstrated candor and cooperation by stipulating to key facts and accepting culpability for one count before trial. Second, the court credited his extraordinary good character — evidenced by 44 witnesses, including the current and former San Francisco Public Defenders, district attorneys, law enforcement officials, clergy, and clients — all attesting to his honesty, dedication, and compassion. Third, the court gave full mitigating weight for his remorse and rehabilitation: he apologized to one judge, paid his contempt fine, reported it to the Bar, and testified credibly that he would act differently today. The court also noted three years of discipline-free practice since the incidents, advancement to felony cases, and completion of mindfulness and anger management programs.

Outcome

The Review Department affirmed culpability for violating §§ 6068(b) and 6103 but found no need for formal discipline. It held that an admonition — a non-disciplinary disposition — was appropriate under Rule 5.126 of the State Bar’s Rules of Procedure. The court found both incidents to be “minor misconduct” that caused no significant harm to clients, the public, or the profession. The respondent’s apology, rehabilitation, and exceptional good character convinced the court that further discipline would be punitive rather than protective. The order of admonition serves as a public reminder that while advocacy is encouraged, attorneys must preserve decorum and respect toward the judiciary.

Sanctions Table

• judge-mcgill
• admonition
• public-defender
• contempt
• disrespect-to-court
• failure-to-obey-court-order
• good-character
• remorse
• mitigation