In the Matter of Salant (Review Dept. 1999) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1

Overview

This reinstatement case involved an attorney disbarred after a criminal conviction for impersonating her former husband by sitting for the California Bar Examination on his behalf. The Review Department held that the petitioner established rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and current legal competence by clear and convincing evidence and recommended reinstatement.

Background Facts

Petitioner Laura Beth Salant was disbarred in 1989 following her conviction for fraud arising from her application and participation in the California Bar Examination in place of her then husband. The misconduct occurred during an exceptionally stressful period involving pregnancy complications, health issues, and emotional pressure from her spouse.

In 1995, petitioner sought reinstatement. She had since worked as a paralegal for the Internal Revenue Service for many years, completed psychological treatment, and passed the Professional Responsibility Examination.

Reinstatement Legal Standard

To obtain reinstatement, a petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence:

• Present learning and ability in the law
• Successful completion of the Professional Responsibility Exam
• Rehabilitation
• Present moral fitness

Evidence of Rehabilitation

The Review Department found overwhelming evidence supporting rehabilitation. Petitioner demonstrated sustained professional excellence as an IRS paralegal, receiving outstanding performance evaluations, awards, and high-level responsibilities. Numerous supervising attorneys testified that petitioner consistently demonstrated exceptional ethical standards and integrity.

Approximately thirty character witnesses provided favorable testimony, many of whom were government attorneys familiar with petitioner’s past misconduct. These witnesses uniformly described petitioner as honest, remorseful, and highly trustworthy.

Psychological Rehabilitation

Mental health experts unanimously concluded petitioner had achieved meaningful rehabilitation and posed no risk of repeating misconduct. Independent evaluation confirmed she demonstrated stable emotional functioning and appropriate responses to stress.

Rule 955 Compliance Issue

The State Bar argued reinstatement should be denied because petitioner failed to timely file an affidavit of compliance under rule 955 following her disbarment. The court rejected this argument, holding that delayed compliance alone does not preclude reinstatement, especially where no clients or pending matters were affected.

Alleged Misconduct During Reinstatement Proceedings

The State Bar also argued petitioner’s litigation conduct and protective order requests concerning her former husband demonstrated lack of rehabilitation. The court disagreed, holding that petitioner had the right to seek judicial protection and that her actions did not reflect dishonesty or moral unfitness.

Key Legal Principles

1. Rule 955 violations do not automatically bar reinstatement

Failure to timely comply with rule 955 is not, by itself, grounds to deny reinstatement.

2. Character evidence may strongly support rehabilitation

Extensive favorable testimony from knowledgeable witnesses carries significant weight in reinstatement proceedings.

3. Psychological recovery is relevant evidence

Consistent expert findings supporting emotional stability strongly support rehabilitation.

4. Petitioners cannot receive “reasonable doubt” benefit

Unlike disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement requires affirmative proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Outcome

The Review Department recommended granting petitioner reinstatement, subject to payment of fees and compliance with oath requirements.

Sanctions Table