Suspension Proposed For False Affidavits

An attorney who falsely swore on three affidavits that he had no prior discipline should be suspended for 90 days followed by probation, according to a recent recommendation of the California State Bar Court Review Department.

 Palmer admits he swore falsely in each affidavit that he had no history of attorney discipline, and he authorized the affidavits for filing. He argues, though, that he acted with simple negligence, not moral turpitude, and is not culpable of misconduct. Even if he is found culpable, Palmer asserts that the recommended discipline is excessive and a public reproval is appropriate…considering the totality of the circumstances, [we] agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Palmer acted with gross negligence, amounting to moral turpitude, in executing and filing the false affidavits. We also affirm the recommended discipline…

The prior discipline involved a tax offense in Colorado that had resulted in bar discipline..

As to intent

Palmer either personally signed or approved for electronic signature, and authorized for filing, each of the false affidavits. However, he did not review the affidavits carefully, as he failed to notice the plainly false statements contained therein. In fact, such lack of diligence was common in Palmer’s practice. His long-time paralegal, who prepared the affidavits for his approval and signature, testified that Palmer “did not thoroughly review what [she] put in front of him to sign.” This lack of attention is substantially below the ethical standard of care required of attorneys when signing and filing documents under oath. Indeed, the standard of ethical practice for a reasonable attorney in Palmer’s situation, with prior records of discipline, should be heightened when signing and filing applications intended to demonstrate his suitability to practice law. Palmer also failed to act promptly in reviewing and correcting his applications in other pending cases after learning of his misrepresentation in the Crayola affidavit. We conclude that the totality of his actions evidences gross negligence.

The Review Board found some mitigation.

for his prompt steps in conducting an audit of his pro hac vice applications in August 2012, once he learned of the misstatements, and for overhauling his internal case management practices to track the status of his pending cases and the documents filed therein. These acts show remorse and recognition of wrongdoing.

(Mike Frisch)