Facts

Robert Earl Wyrick III, admitted in 1973, previously served a lengthy suspension after being convicted of attempting to receive stolen property and making harassing filings. While still on interim suspension from that earlier matter, Wyrick applied for a position as a judicial arbitrator with the Sacramento County Superior Court. In his application letter, he described himself as a member of the State Bar, used the title “Esq.,” and omitted mention of his suspended status. He was appointed and served as an arbitrator during his suspension.

After his return to practice, Wyrick submitted job applications to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and later to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). On both applications, he listed himself as self-employed as an attorney since 1973, implying uninterrupted practice. He did not disclose his suspension to either agency and was subsequently terminated from CalTrans for misrepresentation. The State Personnel Board found his omissions misleading and amounting to fraud in securing employment.

Findings and Discussion

The Review Department found that Wyrick held himself out as entitled to practice law while under suspension, violating Business & Professions Code §6106. His letter to the arbitration administrator created a false impression that he was eligible to serve when he was not, and his subsequent service as an unqualified arbitrator undermined public confidence in the judicial system. The court determined that his omissions constituted gross negligence amounting to moral turpitude.

With respect to the OAL and CalTrans applications, the Review Department concluded that Wyrick’s representations were misleading regardless of whether the employers relied on them. His selective omissions gave the false appearance of continuous legal employment. The court rejected claims that he was merely following instructions from personnel officers, noting that honesty about disciplinary history is a fundamental professional duty.

In aggravation, the court considered Wyrick’s prior record of discipline for acts involving moral turpitude. Although no pattern linking the cases was found, his repeated breaches of ethical duties demonstrated a lack of understanding of professional responsibilities. The Review Department increased discipline from a stayed four-month suspension to a stayed two-year suspension with six months actual suspension, citing harm to public confidence and the integrity of the judicial process.

Sanctions Table

Holding and Significance

The Review Department held that a suspended attorney may not, by omission or implication, represent themselves as entitled to practice law. Misrepresentation of status to a court or public employer constitutes moral turpitude under §6106. The court emphasized that such deceit undermines public confidence in the justice system and warrants actual suspension to protect the public. Attorneys must ensure that resumes and applications are as accurate as any statement made to a court or client.

Tags