In the Matter of Walter Alexander Varakin (1994)

Overview

In the Matter of Varakin is a leading Review Department decision holding that a long-term pattern of frivolous, harassing, and vexatious litigation—even when the attorney frequently acts in propria persona—constitutes moral turpitude and warrants disbarment when coupled with lack of remorse and refusal to reform.

The decision is also a frequently cited authority on notice-pleading requirements in State Bar discipline, judicial notice of court records, and the independent duty to report judicial sanctions.

Facts

Varakin was admitted to the California Bar in 1951 and practiced for decades without discipline. Beginning in the early 1980s, however, he embarked on a prolonged personal vendetta against his former spouse and others arising out of marital property disputes.

Between approximately 1983 and 1993, Varakin—representing himself and at times his mother— filed dozens of frivolous motions, appeals, and writ petitions in at least four related matters (Tarnavsky, Kirueshkin, TICOR, and Steinberg). Appellate courts repeatedly found his filings meritless, incoherent, abusive, and pursued solely for delay and harassment.

Courts imposed at least fourteen monetary sanctions exceeding $80,000, noting Varakin’s misstatements of fact, failure to cite authority, disregard of standards of review, concealment of prior adverse rulings, and defiance of court orders. Despite escalating sanctions and express warnings, he persisted in the same conduct for more than a decade.

Varakin also intentionally failed to report multiple judicial sanctions exceeding $1,000 to the State Bar, despite repeated statutory notice, and failed to provide written responses to State Bar investigatory letters. He expressed no remorse, testified that he was proud of his conduct, and stated he would act the same way again.

Charges

• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 — Moral turpitude (pattern of abusive litigation)
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(b) — Failure to maintain respect for courts
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(c) — Maintaining unjust and frivolous actions
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(f) — Offensive personality
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(g) — Actions pursued from corrupt motive
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(o)(3) — Failure to report judicial sanctions
• Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(i) — Failure to cooperate with State Bar investigation

Defenses

Varakin argued that the notice to show cause was inadequately pled, that sanctions incurred while self-represented were not reportable, and that courts’ independent reporting excused his own duty to report. He also denied willfulness and asserted he posed no threat to the public.

The Review Department rejected these arguments, holding that the statutory reporting duties apply regardless of self-representation, that court and attorney reporting duties are independent, and that lack of knowledge of the statute is not a defense.

Aggravation and Mitigation

Discipline Imposed

Key Takeaways

• Abuse of the judicial process can constitute moral turpitude even without client misconduct.
• Self-representation does not shield an attorney from discipline.
• Sanctions reporting duties apply regardless of whether the court also reports.
• Persistent misconduct combined with lack of remorse strongly favors disbarment.