Overview

This probation revocation proceeding addressed whether attorney Richard Michael Laden should be actually suspended for repeatedly failing to make timely restitution payments to a former client and repeatedly filing delinquent quarterly probation reports.

Although Laden ultimately paid restitution and brought himself into compliance, the Review Department concluded that his repeated late payments — especially in light of his extensive prior discipline for the same client matter — warranted a 90-day actual suspension, with an additional condition that suspension would continue until restitution was paid in full.

Detailed Factual Background

Richard Laden had practiced personal injury and workers’ compensation law since 1978, primarily on a contingency fee basis. His financial situation was unstable, with uneven cash flow, difficulty paying personal expenses, and ongoing financial hardship.

The disciplinary history stemmed from his mishandling of a wrongful death lawsuit for client June Allen. In 1992, he was privately reproved and required to submit the matter to binding arbitration. Allen obtained a malpractice award of $21,349.90.

Laden repeatedly sought extensions of time to complete restitution. Despite those extensions, he failed to timely pay restitution, leading to:

• 1998 discipline for failure to comply with probation (30 days actual suspension).
• 2000 discipline including a two-year stayed suspension and ongoing restitution requirements.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2000 order, Laden was required to:

• Pay $9,910.07 in monthly installments of $300 plus interest.
• Submit quarterly probation reports to the State Bar.

Over the following two years:

• He was late on 19 of 27 restitution payments.
• Payments were between 3 and 160 days late.
• He was late filing 7 of 9 quarterly reports.

He often made lump-sum payments to catch up after falling behind. Although he previously had sought modification of restitution terms, he did not seek modification during this probation period.

The State Bar filed a Motion to Revoke Probation under Business & Professions Code §6093. At the hearing, Laden admitted the late payments and late reports but attributed them to financial hardship rather than disregard of probation conditions.

By the time of the hearing, he had:

• Brought restitution current.
• Brought reporting current.
• Passed the Professional Responsibility Exam.

Culpability Findings

The Review Department held that willfulness in probation cases does not require evil intent — only a purposeful act or omission. Repeated late payments and reports constituted willful violations, even if caused by financial hardship.

The court emphasized that timely restitution is central to rehabilitation. Repeated delays undermine the purpose of disciplinary probation.

Aggravating Factors

• Significant Prior Discipline — This was the third State Bar matter arising from failure to timely pay restitution to the same client.
• Multiple Violations — Numerous late payments and reporting failures, including uncharged but proven misconduct.
• Repeated State Bar Intervention — The Bar had to repeatedly contact respondent to obtain compliance.

The Review Department gave significant weight to the prior record because the current violations closely mirrored earlier misconduct.

Mitigating Factors

• Financial Hardship — Ongoing unstable income from contingency practice.
• Belated Full Compliance — Ultimately brought all payments and reports current.
• Cooperation with Client — Maintained communication and courteous contact.
• Community Service — Volunteer activities and synagogue involvement.

Mitigation was credited but partially discounted because compliance often occurred only after State Bar prompting.

Sanctions Analysis

The court compared probation revocation cases including:

• In the Matter of Gorman (30-day suspension).
• In the Matter of Tiernan (1-year actual suspension).
• In the Matter of Hunter (1-year suspension).
• In the Matter of Broderick (1-year suspension).
• In the Matter of Taggart (6-month suspension).

The court found this case serious but distinguishable because:

• Violations involved one client matter.
• Restitution was eventually paid.
• Some mitigation was present.

However, repeated similar misconduct required meaningful actual suspension.

Simplified Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways for Attorneys

• Timely restitution is viewed as central to rehabilitation.
• Repeated violations of the same probation condition significantly increase discipline.
• Financial hardship may mitigate — but does not excuse — willful violations.
• Failure to seek modification of probation terms may weigh against the attorney.
• Courts may condition suspension on full restitution payment.

Conclusion

The Review Department affirmed a 90-day actual suspension and added the requirement that suspension would remain in effect until full restitution was paid. The case underscores that repeated probation violations — particularly involving restitution — will result in escalating discipline, even where eventual compliance is achieved.