The California State Bar Court Review Department recommended a three-month suspension of an attorney

The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) charged Shameem Hasan with five counts of misconduct in one client’s immigration matter. Before his disciplinary trial, Hasan applied to participate in the State Bar’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP), a disciplinary option for members with substance abuse or mental health issues. When he failed to complete the required contract, Hasan was not accepted into the ADP, and his case went to trial.

Hasan stipulated to four counts of culpability at the close of trial, including that he failed to: (1) respond to client inquiries; (2) release his client’s file; (3) refund unearned fees; and (4) refund advance costs. The hearing judge also found him culpable of failing to perform with competence, and recommended discipline that included a three-month actual suspension.

Hasan appeals, but does not challenge culpability. He contends he should have been admitted into the ADP. Alternatively, he argues for more mitigation, less aggravation, and a public reproval. OCTC does not appeal, but contests Hasan’s ADP arguments.

The court found that the attorney’s second effort to participate in the ADP was procedurally defective

We reject Hasan’s challenge of the ADP judge’s January 20, 2016 ruling for two reasons. First, it was untimely. Referral to the ADP must be made 45 days prior to the first scheduled trial date. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.381.) Hasan sought admission for the second time the day before trial, making his request 44 days late. Second, Hasan’s ADP challenge was not brought under the correct rule. The Review Department evaluates grants or denials of admission to the ADP program pursuant to interlocutory review procedures. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rules 5.389, 5.150.) Hasan was required to file his petition for interlocutory review within 15 days after the ADP judge’s January 20, 2016 order. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 5.150(B).) He failed to do so. Instead, he waited more than two months to file his request for review of the hearing judge’s decision pursuant to rule 5.151 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. Int hat request, he sought review of the ADP judge’s pretrial order denying his admission to the ADP, which should have been addressed by interlocutory review.

 Sanction

We find no reason to deviate from the three-month actual suspension that standard 2.2(a) recommends given Hasan’s multiple counts of varied misconduct and the aggravating circumstances, particularly his lack of candor and indifference to his wrongdoing.