Overview

In In the Matter of Tiernan, the Review Department addressed a probation revocation proceeding arising from the attorney’s repeated failures to comply with disciplinary probation conditions. The court found that the respondent willfully failed to cooperate with his probation monitor and repeatedly failed to timely file required probation reports. Given his extensive prior disciplinary history and lack of mitigation, the court increased the recommended actual suspension and ordered involuntary inactive enrollment.

Facts

Gerald J. Tiernan was already on disciplinary probation pursuant to a prior Supreme Court order. As a condition of that probation, he was required to cooperate with his probation monitor and to file quarterly probation reports on time.

The State Bar moved to revoke his probation after Tiernan failed to return multiple telephone calls from his probation monitor and failed to timely submit probation reports due in January and April 1995. Evidence showed the monitor had left several messages, and Tiernan did not respond. Tiernan later testified he had left the country for an extended vacation without notifying his monitor.

Tiernan eventually filed the reports, but only after receiving notice of the probation revocation proceeding. One report also contained a defective accountant certification that did not comply with probation conditions.

The Review Department concluded that these acts constituted willful probation violations and demonstrated an ongoing pattern of noncompliance.

Charges

• Failure to cooperate with probation monitor
• Failure to timely file probation reports
• Failure to comply with probation conditions
• Professional misconduct related to probation violations

Aggravation

• Four prior records of discipline
• Multiple acts of misconduct
• Repeated violations of the same probation condition
• Pattern of ongoing noncompliance
• Lack of mitigation

The court emphasized that respondent had never timely filed a single probation report during the first portion of his probation and that each successive violation increased the seriousness of the misconduct.

Mitigation

The court found no meaningful mitigation. Late filing of reports did not qualify as mitigation because they were submitted only after the State Bar initiated revocation proceedings.

Key Holding

Repeated probation violations, especially after prior discipline for similar misconduct, demonstrate a lack of fitness to practice law and warrant substantial actual suspension. Failure to comply with probation conditions is itself serious misconduct reflecting disrespect for the legal system.

Outcome

The Review Department revoked probation, increased the recommended actual suspension from six months to eleven months, imposed additional probation conditions, and ordered the respondent involuntarily enrolled inactive under Business and Professions Code section 6007(d).

Sanctions Table