In the Matter of Rossana Pilar Mitchell

Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 135

Overview

The Review Department affirmed a recommendation of disbarment after finding that Mitchell:

• Knowingly violated California Rules of Court, rule 9.20
• Filed a false rule 9.20 compliance declaration
• Committed acts of moral turpitude under Bus. & Prof. Code §6106
• Failed to account to clients
• Improperly acquired a pecuniary interest adverse to a client
• Failed to refund unearned fees

What distinguished this case from typical rule 9.20 violations was the court’s finding of intentional dishonesty and indifference.

Charges (Notice of Disciplinary Charges)

N Case – Rule 9.20 Violations

• Failure to notify clients of suspension (rule 9.20(a)(1))
• Failure to notify opposing counsel and courts
• Failure to properly comply with Supreme Court order

O Case – Additional Misconduct

• False compliance declaration (Bus. & Prof. Code §6106 – moral turpitude)
• Improper lien acquisition (Rule 1.8.1)
• Failure to account (two client matters) (Rule 1.15(d)(4))
• Failure to refund unearned fees (Rule 1.16(e)(2))

Factual Background – Rule 9.20 Misconduct

Mitchell was previously disciplined in 2021 and ordered suspended. The Supreme Court specifically ordered compliance with rule 9.20.

Rather than notify clients by certified mail as required, Mitchell:

• Told clients she was taking “personal time off” or going on “vacation”
• Attempted to substitute out of cases before the suspension effective date
• Continued appearing remotely in active cases
• Failed to ensure substitution forms were filed before suspension

Despite representing multiple clients on the date the Supreme Court order was filed, she submitted a compliance declaration stating:

• She had no clients
• She did not represent clients in pending matters

Those statements were objectively false.

Respondent’s Defenses

1. Good Faith Misunderstanding

Mitchell argued she believed compliance required only substituting out of cases before the suspension’s effective date.

She claimed:

• She misunderstood the operative date (filing date vs. effective date)
• She relied on staff and prior disciplinary counsel
• She believed signed substitution forms were sufficient

2. Lack of Indifference

She asserted she apologized at trial and acknowledged mistakes, arguing the hearing judge improperly found indifference.

Judicial Reasoning

1. Operative Date Was Clear

The Supreme Court order and prior decision explicitly stated that the operative date for identifying clients was the filing date of the order — November 15, 2021.

The compliance declaration form itself reinforced that date.

2. Intentional Misrepresentation

The court found Mitchell knowingly checked boxes stating she had no clients despite knowing she had active matters.

The Review Department emphasized:

• Rule 9.20 protects clients, courts, and opposing counsel.
• Accurate compliance declarations are essential to public trust.
• Knowingly false sworn statements constitute moral turpitude.

This was not negligence — it was intentional dishonesty.

3. No Good Faith Mitigation

To qualify for mitigation under Standard 1.6(b), a belief must be honestly held and objectively reasonable.

The court found:

• Her belief was not objectively reasonable.
• She failed to read the prior opinion carefully.
• She continued appearing in cases after the filing date.
• She failed to verify substitutions were filed.

4. Indifference Found

Mitchell blamed:

• Prior disciplinary counsel
• Her associate
• Office staff
• Even clients

The court concluded she did not accept responsibility and lacked understanding of the seriousness of disobeying a Supreme Court order.

Additional Client Misconduct

Cervantes Matter

• Acquired charging lien without advising client to seek independent counsel
• Failed to provide accounting

Sanchez Matter

• Delayed over three months before providing accounting
• Delayed refund of unearned fees

Aggravation

Mitigation

Standards Analysis

Standard 2.11 provides that disbarment or actual suspension is presumed for acts of moral turpitude involving dishonesty.

Because Mitchell:

• Intentionally filed a false declaration,
• Disobeyed a Supreme Court order,
• Demonstrated indifference,

the court determined that disbarment was appropriate.

Why Disbarment Was Imposed

The court distinguished cases like Chavez, where attorneys were negligent but not intentionally dishonest.

Here, Mitchell:

• Concealed suspension from clients
• Filed a knowingly false declaration
• Failed to accept responsibility
• Committed additional client-related misconduct

The court emphasized that dishonesty toward the court undermines the integrity of the legal profession itself.

Sanctions Table

Key Lessons for Attorneys

• Rule 9.20 compliance is strict and mandatory.
• The operative date is the filing date of the Supreme Court order.
• Knowingly false compliance declarations almost always lead to disbarment.
• Blaming staff or counsel does not mitigate responsibility.
• Dishonesty toward the court is often career-ending.