The Wrong Partner

The California State Bar Court Hearing Department has approved a stipulation for a one-year suspension with all but thirty days stayed for misconduct in matters involving three separate clients.

The circumstances that led to the ethics issues

Respondent has suffered for many years from depression, anxiety, diabetes, high blood pressure, obstructive sleep apnea, insomnia, recurring syncope episodes, a non-specific autoimmune disorder, and frequent incapacitating migraine headaches. In November 2014, respondent was advised by her physician to take time off from work. In 2015, respondent was placed on disability. In February 2015, a syncope episode caused loss of consciousness, which resulted in a concussion and hospitalization. Respondent was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome, which involved memory loss, confusion, and dizziness. In May 2015, respondent’s partner closed the firm, which had been in Sacramento. In September 2015, after treatment for her various issues, including depression and anxiety, respondent returned to work on a part-time basis as a paralegal for a law firm. In November 2016, respondent suffered another syncope episode, which resulted in a non-displaced fracture of the left mandible [broken jaw]. Although respondent continues to have health issues, with the assistance of her physician(s) and medication, she has been able to manage her depression and anxiety.

Respondent, during the operative time frame involved in these matters, practiced in a partnership with another attorney. In early 2014 and continuing thereafter, respondent’s partner began to exhibit angry behavior and make baseless accusations against respondent. Respondent noted other aberrant behavior by her partner, including his closing the law office for the day, without consulting with respondent or considering her deadlines. Respondent was on notice that her partner was exhibiting an unstable mental condition. When respondent’s health deteriorated, respondent’s law partner represented that he either would be handling or had handled her cases. Respondent, although on notice of her partner’s odd behavior, in good faith believed that her partner had handled the matters. Respondent did not make any independent effort to verify the claim. In fact, respondent’s partner did not adequately handle the legal matters for which respondent was hired. Respondent’s partner resigned from the practice of law effective September 3, 2016.

The stipulation considers the attorney’s good faith and the above mitigation.

The recommendation now goes to the California Supreme Court. (Mike Frisch)