In the Matter of Romualdo Benito Navarro (1990)
Citation: 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 192
Decided: October 11, 1990
Judges: Pearlman, P.J.; Norian, J.; Stovitz, J.
Background
Attorney Romualdo Benito Navarro, admitted to practice in 1975 with no prior discipline, was charged with multiple counts of misconduct related to one client, Clarence Walker. The Notice to Show Cause alleged two main types of misconduct: misappropriation of client funds and client abandonment, plus additional counts of making misrepresentations to the State Bar and practicing while suspended for nonpayment of dues.
Navarro attempted to file a timely answer to the Notice to Show Cause, but his submission was rejected by the State Bar Court clerk for minor technical reasons (lack of proof of service and insufficient copies). The clerk’s letter invited him to correct and resubmit the filing, without setting a firm deadline. Less than a week later, Navarro mailed a corrected version, which the clerk’s office received—unaware that it had already entered his default just one day earlier. The corrected answer was therefore rejected, and the matter proceeded as a default hearing without his participation.
Procedural History
After his default was entered, Navarro filed a motion to set aside default within the time permitted under former Rule 555.1(a) of the State Bar Rules of Procedure, supported by a declaration verifying the facts in his rejected answer. However, the Assistant Presiding Referee denied his motion, finding no “inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The matter proceeded to hearing in his absence, where the referee found him culpable on all four counts and recommended one year of actual suspension.
Navarro sought review by the State Bar Court Review Department, which examined whether the default was properly entered and whether the denial of relief was an abuse of discretion.
Issues on Review
- Was the default properly entered when the clerk had already received Navarro’s answer—albeit defective—and had invited correction?
- Did the Assistant Presiding Referee abuse discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default?
Findings
The Review Department emphasized California’s strong public policy favoring hearings on the merits. It held that Navarro acted reasonably: he submitted a timely answer, promptly corrected it upon notice of the technical defects, and filed his motion to set aside default within the required period. The premature default entry by the clerk’s office—before Navarro had a reasonable opportunity to cure—was deemed improper.
The Department noted that under Code of Civil Procedure §473, “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” must be liberally construed to allow relief from default when reasonable conduct is shown. The court found that Navarro’s actions met this standard and that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his motion.
The court also clarified that an answer filed before default does not need to be verified, and that lack of verification could not justify denial of relief without allowing an opportunity to amend. The clerk’s early entry of default deprived Navarro of a fair chance to defend on the merits, violating procedural fairness.
Holding
The Review Department vacated the default, vacated the hearing department’s decision, and remanded the case for a de novo hearing on the merits before a new judge of the State Bar Court. It reaffirmed that even technical noncompliance should not deprive a respondent attorney of a hearing where correction was promptly made and no prejudice resulted to the State Bar.
Key Legal Principles
- The time limit to answer a Notice to Show Cause is not jurisdictional—an answer can be filed any time before actual default entry.
- Relief from default under Rule 555.1(a) is evaluated under Code Civ. Proc. §473 standards.
- Any doubts under §473 must be resolved in favor of a hearing on the merits.
- Lack of verification is curable and cannot justify denial of relief.
- An attorney is entitled to rely on a clerk’s written communications in determining deadlines.
Outcome
The Review Department ordered that:
- The default and prior decision be vacated;
- The corrected response received June 12, 1989, be filed;
- The case be remanded for a new hearing before a different judge.
Significance
In the Matter of Navarro reinforces the strong preference for resolving disciplinary charges on their merits rather than through technical defaults. The court emphasized that when an attorney acts reasonably to correct procedural defects, relief from default must be granted. The decision also clarified that State Bar procedures are guided by civil standards of fairness and excusable neglect, ensuring that lawyers are not deprived of due process because of clerical or technical missteps.