Suspension Excessive For False CLE Submission

An attorney who falsely (but through negligence rather than intent to deceive) certified that she had completed CLE obligations was publicly reproved by the California State Bar Court Review Department.

The misconduct was discovered through an audit. The attorney had filed compliance statements affirming that she had done the CLE without checking her own records.

The court

Requiring attorneys to submit accurate MCLE compliance affirmations is essential to maintaining public confidence in the legal profession. “The aim of continuing legal education is to provide continuing assurance to the public that all California attorneys, no matter how many years may have passed since their law school graduation and State Bar admission, have the knowledge and skills to provide their clients with high quality legal services.” ( Warden v. State Bar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 628, 654 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) Attorneys must accurately report compliance because the MCLE program is based on an honor system where random audits serve as the only enforcement check. In turn, the State Bar relies on self-reporting by attorneys to accurately represent to the public, the courts, and other members of the Bar that they are eligible to practice law.

The court found extensive mitigation and concluded that probation would be an excessive sanction under the circumstances.

A dissent would impose no discipline

 [The attorney] mistakenly recalled that she had completed the MCLE courses. When randomly audited by the State Bar, she admitted her mistake, corrected her error, and submitted proper proof of compliance. In other words, the process worked. To turn this matter into a discipline case, and worse yet, a case of moral turpitude, is a disservice to the attorney discipline system. Accordingly, I would dismiss this proceeding.

The Office of Chief Trial Counsel had sought a 30-day suspension. (Mike Frisch)