Exposed To Disbarment

The California State Bar Court has filed a stipulation of disbarment of an attorney convicted of indecent exposure for conduct in 2015

On the morning of June 2, 2015, at approximately 8:15 a.m., respondent used an open, and thus unobstructed, window in his apartment to knowingly and willfully expose his penis in view of his apartment building’s rear parking lot. The victim, an adult female who had recently parked her vehicle, was standing in the parking lot at the time of the incident. From this location, the victim saw respondent touch and manipulate his exposed penis. Respondent’s window did not overlook the school grounds, but his apartment was within two minutes’ walking distance of the school. On the day of the incident, respondent was also in violation of his sex offender registration requirements as he had not registered his change of address with local law enforcement.

There is a prior offense

On April 22, 2003, the Calaveras County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint in the matter, People v. William Leo Smith, ease no. C9894, charging respondent with one count for a violation of Penal Code section 314(1) [indecent exposure], a misdemeanor. Underlying this criminal complaint and respondent’s subsequent plea of no contest are the following facts: On the evening of March 2, 2003, between 6:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m., respondent knowingly and willfully used a window of his law office to expose and fondle his penis in view of a neighboring home. The victim – one of respondent’s neighbors – was in her living room when respondent purposely exposed himself in the direction of the victim’s living room window. This incident was recorded by the victim as respondent had exposed himself to the victim on prior occasions and the victim had set up a recorder in ease of future incidents.

That conviction was later vacated by the Superior Court.

Sanction

Here, respondent stipulated that his felony conviction for indecent exposure involved moral turpitude. The facts and circumstances surrounding respondent’s felony conviction were serious and they demonstrated a lack of regard for others, including children that attended a nearby school. There are no factors in aggravation but respondent received mitigative credit for practicing law for many years with no prior record of discipline. Respondent also received mitigation for entering.into a pre-trial stipulation, which showed a recognition of wrongdoing and saved State Bar time and resources. However, respondent’s mitigation is not sufficiently compelling to warrant a deviation from the presumed sanction of disbarment. Because respondent gravely breached societal norms, disbarment is necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession, to maintain the highest professional standards, and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession.

(Mike Frisch)