In the Matter of Roger S. Hanson (1994)

Overview

This case addresses an attorney’s duties upon discharge, including the obligation to promptly refund unearned fees and to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to clients. The Review Department reduced a recommended stayed suspension to a public reproval, emphasizing proportional discipline and the limited weight of remote prior misconduct.

Facts

Roger S. Hanson was admitted to the California Bar in 1966. The disciplinary proceeding arose from two client matters: the Shea matter and the Flesher matter. Culpability was ultimately found only in the Shea matter.

In the Shea matter, James and Leslie Shea retained Hanson in June 1989 to investigate whether a former Idaho county employer had improperly disclosed adverse employment information to the City of Seal Beach Police Department. The Sheas paid Hanson $3,000 in advance attorney fees.

Hanson reviewed documents, contacted the Seal Beach Police Chief, and communicated with the city attorney. He prepared a hold harmless agreement in an effort to obtain information, but the city declined to accept it. Hanson advised the Sheas that filing suit might be necessary, but the clients were reluctant to pursue litigation.

In January 1990, the Sheas discharged Hanson and demanded an accounting, refund of unearned fees, return of their file, and notification to the city attorney that Hanson no longer represented them. Although Hanson later claimed he sent a billing letter offering a partial refund, the hearing judge found conflicting testimony and could not resolve whether the accounting was provided.

Hanson did not notify the Seal Beach city attorney of his withdrawal. As a result, the city attorney refused to communicate with the Sheas without confirmation that Hanson no longer represented them. Hanson did not refund the unearned portion of the fee until April 1991—more than one year after termination—after State Bar intervention.

The Flesher matter involved a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Although multiple charges were alleged, the hearing judge and Review Department found insufficient evidence to support any culpability in that matter.

Charges

Defenses

Hanson argued that he had substantially earned the fee, had attempted to provide an accounting, and that any delay in refunding funds was not willful. He also contended that the recommended discipline was excessive and that public reproval with a professional responsibility exam would suffice.

Mitigation and Aggravation

• Mitigation: None found. Claims of pro bono work and cooperation were unsupported by evidence.
• Aggravation (Discounted): Prior private reproval from 1975. The Review Department gave it minimal weight due to its remoteness and minor nature.

Outcome

The Review Department agreed with the hearing judge that Hanson willfully violated Rules 3-700(D)(2) and 3-700(A)(2) in the Shea matter. However, it concluded that the recommended stayed suspension was disproportionate given comparable case law and the remoteness of prior discipline.

The discipline was modified to a public reproval with the added requirement that Hanson complete the State Bar Ethics School and pass the accompanying test within one year.

Sanctions Table