Facts

Respondent G, admitted in 1981, was retained to probate his client’s mother’s estate. The client, Alice B., served as executor and sole beneficiary. Respondent managed all filings and correspondence but failed to notify her of a state inheritance tax assessment of $818 confirmed by court order in 1983. Despite receiving copies of the referee’s report and order, Respondent did not inform the client, who assumed the estate was closed.

From 1983 through 1987, the State Controller’s Office mailed repeated notices of the unpaid tax. Respondent again failed to act. By 1989, penalties and interest exceeded $400, and a lien was placed on the client’s property. The client ultimately paid the tax but not the accrued interest until after filing a State Bar complaint. Respondent acknowledged fault, promised reimbursement, and began improving office procedures. There was no evidence of intent to defraud; the issue arose from neglect and poor office systems early in his practice.

Findings and Discussion

The Review Department found that Respondent’s repeated failure to inform his client of the tax assessment constituted a wilful violation of former Rule 6-101(A)(2) (now Rule 3-110(A)), even absent intent to harm. The Department explained that “wilful” means deliberate acts or omissions, not malicious intent. Neglect of such duration was deemed reckless disregard of professional obligations.

Mitigating factors included candor, cooperation, reforms in office management, and completion of ethics training. There was no prior discipline. The panel upheld a private reproval but ordered restitution of the client’s losses.

Sanctions Table

Holding and Significance

The case clarified that prolonged neglect of client duties is wilful misconduct under Rule 6-101(A)(2) even without intent to harm. Attorneys must promptly communicate court-ordered obligations to clients. Restitution and ethics education are proper conditions for reproval where misconduct stems from inexperience rather than deceit.

Tags

Background

After the initial reproval, the State Bar’s Office of Trials sought reconsideration, urging that Respondent be required to pass the California Professional Responsibility Examination (CPRE) as a condition of discipline. The Office argued CPRE should be imposed automatically in all cases of culpability under the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Findings and Analysis

The Review Department reaffirmed that the term “wilful” under Rule 6-101(A)(2) does not require intent to harm—repeated negligence suffices. However, CPRE is not automatically appropriate. Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 956(a), conditions must serve public protection or the respondent’s rehabilitation.

Here, the misconduct arose from early-career office-management lapses, not dishonesty or ethical ignorance. Respondent had already corrected procedures and completed ethics education. The panel found no public-protection need or rehabilitative value in imposing CPRE, and therefore denied the request.

Reconsideration Table

Significance

This order confirms that CPRE is not a blanket requirement for reprovals. Each condition must be tailored to the misconduct. The case distinguishes between neglect-based violations and ethical ignorance, clarifying proportional use of educational sanctions.

Tags