Disbarment Proposed For Probation Violations

An attorney who had failed to comply with the terms of probation in a prior disciplinary matter should be disbarred as a result, according to a recommendation of the California State Bar Court Review Department.

Haddix became a member of the California State Bar on March 20, 1989. He was first admitted to practice law in Michigan in 1965, and then in Illinois in 1966 or 1967. Throughout his lengthy career, he has litigated cases in various practice areas including family law, criminal defense, constitutional law, and civil rights.

He violated the terms of a five-year probationary period

Haddix insists he can comply with future probation terms because his attorney will oversee his reports and correct any errors. The hearing judge properly rejected this solution, reasoning that “hir[ing] an attorney to do the required probation reports is hardly the purpose of the probation conditions.” We agree that although another attorney’s assistance might enable Haddix to fulfill his probation terms, it does not protect the public from his inability to perform similarly simple, and certainly more complex, tasks for clients.

Mitigation factors argued by the attorney were rejected

Haddix argues he is entitled to mitigation because his physical difficulties exacted an emotional toll on him while caring for his ill wife. To support his claim, he points to the testimony of his wife, son, and former partner, who each stated that Haddix and his wife endured significant health problems between 2010 and 2012. Haddix testified that his own health had been slowly declining even before that. Further, he suffered debilitating symptoms of anemia, including fatigue and dizziness, which led to his hospitalization. He produced an October 2011 medical statement from his physician indicating he had limited physical capacity and stamina that prevented him from completing his daily responsibilities. As to his prognosis, the doctor opined that changes in Haddix’s work and medical care would “hopefully” allow him to work at a modified pace.

The record does not establish that Haddix’s difficulties caused his misconduct. He began experiencing physical symptoms, at the earliest, about October of 2009, -11- 9 and his wife’s symptoms began in the first half of 2010. Yet his systematic failures to comply with standard discipline conditions began years earlier, in 2006. This prior history of non-compliance casts doubt on Haddix’s assertion that health conditions and related stress caused the present misconduct.

And these difficulties remained unresolved.

In sum

Unfortunately, he cannot comply with even basic conditions of his probation, such as filing timely quarterly reports. Given his pattern of repeated violations, the risk is high that Haddix will commit future misconduct, which may endanger the public. We recommend the presumptive discipline of disbarment…

(Mike Frisch)