The Crime Of Attorney Deceit

The California State Bar Court approved a two-year suspension and probation by agreement of an attorney who had altered an expert report used in a criminal trial to make it appear more current and sound more favorable to the client.

The alterations came to light after the client had been convicted and sentenced.

From the hearing board report

On July 15, 2015, the Orange County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint in the Orange County Superior Court, case no. 15CM08004, charging respondent with one violation of Business and Professions Code section 6128(a) [deceit or collusion by an attorney] between December 13, 2012 and February 28, 2014, a misdemeanor.

On November 9, 2015, respondent entered a guilty plea to a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6128(a). Respondent was placed on informal probation for a period of 3 years, ordered to serve 90 days in county jail, pay a $1,000 fine plus penalty assessment, pay $10,000 to the Victim Witness Emergency Fund, pay various fees, abide by any punishment imposed by the State Bar, and complete ethics class as determined by the State Bar.

California has a specific “deceit or collusion by an attorney” crime.

Is that an offense elsewhere? 

From the disposition

Respondent was admitted to practice law December 7, 1995 and has remained active at all times since. Respondent had been discipline-free for approximately 18 years of practice from admission to the misconduct in November 2013. Respondent currently works for a corporation in the human resources department. Respondent ceased representing clients and is not currently practicing law. Therefore, respondent is entitled to significant mitigation.

On the other hand 

Respondent’s misconduct caused harm to his client, [the expert] Dr. Thomas, and the administration of justice. Respondent’s client was harmed by respondent’s misconduct because his client did not receive the full weight/benefit of the expert’s testimony in his criminal trial due to respondent’s criminal acts. Respondent’s misconduct caused Dr. Thomas embarrassment, harm to her professional reputation, and according to Dr. Thomas, she is no longer appointed by the Orange County District Attorney’s office as a psychiatric expert. Respondent’s misconduct caused harm to the administration of justice because respondent altered evidence presented to the judge and the jury, which resulted in Flores filing an appeal and petition for habeas corpus.

(Mike Frisch)