Overview

This probation revocation proceeding arose from attorney Timothy Lee Taggart’s failure to pay court-ordered restitution imposed as a condition of disciplinary probation. The Review Department affirmed a finding that his failure to pay was willful and increased the recommended discipline to a two-year stayed suspension, two years of probation, and six months of actual suspension.

The court emphasized that restitution in disciplinary proceedings is not merely about repayment of debt, but about rehabilitation and protection of the public.

Prior Discipline – Taggart I

In Taggart I, the California Supreme Court imposed a two-year stayed suspension with probation and seven months’ actual suspension. The misconduct included:

• Failure to return unearned fees (Rule 3-700(D)(2))
• Failure to obey court orders (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103)
• Incompetent performance (Rule 3-110(A))
• Moral turpitude (§ 6106)
• Disclosure of confidential information (§ 6068(e))
• Improper motion to disqualify a commissioner (Rule 3-200(A))

A condition of probation required respondent to pay $1,528 plus interest in restitution to attorney Michael Linfield, stemming from unpaid discovery sanctions in a malpractice action. The restitution was due September 19, 1998.

Bankruptcy Filing

Four days before the discipline order became effective, Taggart filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed the restitution obligation as a debt. Although the bankruptcy court discharged his debts, it later ruled that enforcement of the restitution condition was not barred because it was part of the rehabilitative function of attorney discipline.

Failure to Pay Restitution

Taggart never paid any portion of the restitution. The State Bar filed a motion to revoke probation in 1999. Taggart argued that revocation violated due process and equal protection because he lacked financial ability to pay and because the debt had been discharged.

Willfulness Standard

The Review Department reiterated that “willful” in probation revocation proceedings means a general intent to commit the act or omission. It does not require intent to violate the law or bad faith.

Because Taggart admitted he did not pay and presented no evidence that the omission was accidental, the failure was deemed willful.

Ability to Pay Analysis

The court examined both ability to pay and efforts to acquire resources. Taggart presented minimal income evidence but failed to provide:

• Full financial disclosures
• Expense documentation
• Asset information
• Substantial evidence of job-search efforts

The court concluded that the record did not demonstrate extreme or unforeseeable financial hardship sufficient to excuse noncompliance.

Aggravation

• Two prior disciplinary matters (Taggart I & II)
• Repeated failure to comply with court orders
• Indifference toward restitution obligation

Mitigation

The hearing judge initially considered financial hardship in mitigation. However, the Review Department rejected this finding because respondent failed to prove extreme or unforeseeable hardship by clear and convincing evidence.

Degree of Discipline

The court emphasized that restitution serves a rehabilitative and public protection purpose. An attorney’s attitude toward restitution is highly probative of rehabilitation.

The Review Department found Taggart’s conduct demonstrated indifference and increased discipline beyond the hearing judge’s recommendation.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Bankruptcy discharge does not nullify restitution as a disciplinary condition.
• Willfulness requires only intentional omission, not bad faith.
• Financial hardship must be proven with full documentation.
• Restitution reflects rehabilitation, not debt collection.
• Indifference toward probation conditions can increase discipline.