In the Matter of William Storm Bleecker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 113

Court: State Bar Court of California, Review Department | Date: August 22, 1990 | Panel: Stovitz, J. (opinion); Pearlman, P.J.; Norian, J., concurring.

Charges Brought Against Respondent

Attorney William Storm Bleecker, admitted in 1978, faced charges of failure to perform legal services, failure to communicate with clients, and misappropriation of funds. The case arose from his handling of an automobile-accident claim in which he received and cashed a client’s settlement check but failed to distribute the proceeds or maintain the funds in trust. The State Bar alleged violations of Rules 8-101(A) and (B)(4) (trust accounting), Rule 6-101(A)(2) (competence), and Business & Professions Code § 6106 (moral turpitude). The hearing referee recommended **disbarment** following Bleecker’s default.

Defenses and Proceedings

The respondent did not appear or respond to the Notice to Show Cause. After default was entered, the matter proceeded on declarations from the clients and the insurer. Evidence showed that Bleecker negotiated the settlement draft payable jointly to himself and his client, but failed to remit the client’s share or pay medical liens. His trust account balance subsequently fell below the amount owed, confirming misappropriation. He also ignored multiple inquiries from the State Bar, violating § 6068(i). The referee found wilful moral-turpitude misconduct and recommended disbarment.

Findings of the Review Department

On independent review under Rule 453(a), the Review Department agreed that Bleecker had committed acts of moral turpitude, misappropriation, and abandonment. The court found that he had taken his client’s settlement funds for personal use and concealed the misconduct by avoiding communication. The record demonstrated a clear pattern of dishonesty rather than negligence. Because the case involved one client matter but grave misconduct, the Review Department compared the facts to *Edwards v. State Bar* (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28 and *Kelly v. State Bar* (1988) 45 Cal.3d 649, concluding that disbarment was warranted even without multiple client victims.

Mitigation and Aggravation

Mitigation: None. Bleecker did not participate and offered no evidence of restitution, rehabilitation, or remorse.

Aggravation: (1) Misappropriation with intent to deceive; (2) harm to client through loss of settlement proceeds; (3) failure to cooperate with the investigation; and (4) indifference toward rectifying consequences. Because moral-turpitude misappropriation is among the most serious violations, and no mitigating evidence existed, the court concluded that disbarment was required to protect the public and preserve confidence in the profession.

Outcome

The Review Department ordered **disbarment** and **compliance with Rule 955 (now Rule 9.20)**. Bleecker was further required to pass the Professional Responsibility Examination as a condition of reinstatement. The opinion stressed that an attorney who misappropriates client funds—even in a single matter—commits moral turpitude warranting disbarment absent the most compelling mitigation. The court cited Grim v. State Bar (1984) 37 Cal.3d 170 and Edwards, reaffirming that restitution after discovery does not erase the deceit inherent in conversion.

Sanctions Table