In the Matter of Stanley Howard Kimmel

Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1

Overview

In this second disciplinary proceeding, the Review Department addressed whether Stanley Howard Kimmel willfully violated conditions of his prior disciplinary probation. The court held that failure to strictly comply with probation terms—even if “substantial compliance” is claimed—constitutes a willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).

Applying progressive discipline principles under Standard 1.8(a), the court recommended a 90-day actual suspension, along with monetary sanctions.

Prior Discipline

Kimmel previously received a one-year stayed suspension with one year of probation and a 60-day actual suspension for:

• Two counts of failure to perform with competence
• Two counts of failure to keep a client reasonably informed

The Supreme Court order became effective March 3, 2019, and imposed detailed probation conditions, including meeting with the Office of Probation, quarterly reporting, reading specified statutes and rules, and completing Ethics School.

Probation Violations

1. Failure to Timely Schedule and Attend Initial Probation Meeting

Kimmel did not timely schedule his required initial meeting with the Office of Probation. Although he later participated, the delay constituted noncompliance.

2. Failure to Timely Review Required Rules

He did not read specified Rules of Professional Conduct and Business & Professions Code sections by the required deadline, although he later completed the review.

3. Late Final Probation Report

His final quarterly report was filed six days late.

4. Failure to Timely Complete Ethics School

Although he eventually completed Ethics School, he failed to attend the scheduled session and did not timely provide proof of completion.

Legal Analysis

Willfulness Standard

The court emphasized that willfulness does not require bad faith or intent to violate probation conditions. It simply requires that the attorney purposely committed the act or omission. Failure to comply with any probation condition violates section 6068(k).

Estoppel Argument Rejected

Kimmel argued that because Probation marked an earlier report “compliant,” the State Bar should be estopped from charging violations. The court rejected this argument, explaining:

• Estoppel is disfavored in attorney discipline matters.
• Kimmel had actual knowledge of his probation terms.
• He could not reasonably rely on informal communications contrary to a Supreme Court order.

Aggravation & Mitigation

Aggravation

• Prior record of discipline (moderate weight)
• Multiple probation violations (limited weight)

Mitigation

• Stressful family circumstances (limited weight)
• Cooperation with the State Bar (moderate weight)
• Good character references (limited weight)
• Remorse and belated compliance (substantial weight)

Discipline

Key Principles

• Failure to comply with any probation condition violates § 6068(k).
• “Substantial compliance” is not a defense.
• Progressive discipline applies absent compelling mitigation.
• Monetary sanctions under Rule 5.137 apply to proceedings commenced after April 1, 2020.

Takeaway for Attorneys

Probation compliance is strictly enforced. Deadlines must be calendared and satisfied exactly as ordered. Even technical or short delays can constitute willful violations and result in increased suspension.