Facts

Robert Rudnick resigned from the State Bar in 1989 while facing disciplinary charges alleging he misappropriated client trust funds. In September 2003, he petitioned for reinstatement. The hearing judge initially concluded Rudnick had met his burden of proving rehabilitation, moral fitness, and present ability in the law. The State Bar sought review but withdrew its request. The Supreme Court then ordered the Review Department to review the hearing judge’s decision.

The State Bar then sought review, arguing Rudnick had not demonstrated rehabilitation and moral fitness, pointing to a lack of exemplary conduct, failure to disclose lawsuits, and failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955.

Procedural Posture

After a hearing, the hearing judge recommended Rudnick’s reinstatement. The Supreme Court then directed the Review Department to review that recommendation. The State Bar filed its brief arguing against reinstatement based on Rudnick’s failure to demonstrate rehabilitation and moral fitness. Rudnick submitted evidence and testimony in support of his petition. The Review Department then considered the matter.

Issue(s)

Did Rudnick meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was sufficiently rehabilitated, possessed the requisite moral fitness, and had the present learning and ability in the law to warrant reinstatement to the State Bar?

Holding

No. The Review Department concluded that Rudnick failed to sustain his burden of establishing rehabilitation and denied his petition for reinstatement.

Reasoning

The Review Department based its decision on several factors:

• Insufficient Evidence of Restitution: While Rudnick testified he repaid all clients, he provided inadequate evidence of the amounts misappropriated, the timing of restitution, and the specific harm caused to each client. His testimony lacked conviction, and the manner of restitution (paying some clients with other clients’ money) was not consistent with genuine rehabilitation.
• Omissions from Reinstatement Petition: Rudnick failed to disclose nine lawsuits in his petition, including a lawsuit filed by a client (Fisher) whose funds he had misappropriated. The omissions left to chance whether the Bar’s investigation would uncover the lawsuits.
• Inadequate Character Testimony: Letters in support of Rudnick lacked specifics on how the witnesses could fully understand the magnitude of his misconduct or how he made up for it. The letters often described Rudnick’s prior misconduct as aberrant behavior due to financial stresses, but Rudnick had not fully accounted for the financial extent of the harm to his clients.
• Failure to Comply with Rule 955: Rudnick failed to timely comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955, which requires a resigned or disbarred attorney to notify clients and other parties of their changed status.
• Inadequate Evidence of Remorse or Acceptance of Responsibility

Because of the deficiencies in Rudnick’s evidence, the Review Department could not conclude that he had demonstrated the necessary understanding and acceptance of responsibility for his past misconduct.

Defenses Raised

Rudnick argued that he had shown good character and rehabilitation and that the State Bar’s assertions did not negate this evidence. He argued he had a lengthy period of exemplary conduct and that his failure to comply with rule 955 should not preclude his reinstatement.

Disposition & Sanction

The Review Department denied Robert Rudnick’s petition for reinstatement to the State Bar of California.

Practical Implications

• Attorneys seeking reinstatement after resignation or disbarment must provide clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, including full accounting of past misconduct and genuine remorse.
• Evidence of restitution is critical, and the attorney must provide specific details about the amounts misappropriated, the timing of repayment, and the source of funds.
• Omissions from the petition, even if unintentional, can be detrimental to the attorney’s case.
• Character testimony is most effective when the witnesses understand the full extent of the attorney’s misconduct and can attest to the attorney’s acceptance of responsibility.

Citations & Links

• In the Matter of Rudnick, (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 27
• California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 (formerly rule 955)