Not Enough Time For Reinstatement Of Convicted Murderer

The California State Bar Court Hearing Department denied the reinstatement application of a petitioner convicted of murder in 1983

After carefully considering all of the evidence and arguments of the parties, this court concludes that Petitioner has not sustained a lengthy period of time of unsupervised good conduct. Petitioner killed his friend in 1981 and spent 32 years in prison. Evidence of his rehabilitation is most compelling and impressive. He has taken responsibility for his life and past misconduct; he has resurrected himself into a trustworthy, law-abiding and conscientious member of the community. But, because Petitioner was discharged from supervised release only in November 2016, his sustained exemplary conduct of less than two years is not a meaningful period of time. Therefore, Petitioner’s request for reinstatement to the practice of law is denied at this time.

The crime involved his relationship with the Diller family and work as an apartment manager.

The dispute actually involved a rental unit let to the infamous Brian Wilson doctor Eugene Landy.

On May 11 1981

At about 7:00 p.m., [family friend] Gold left the Diller apartment with Michael and Michael’s brother, Arthur. As they were walking out the front door, Petitioner charged up the front steps from out of the bushes, carrying a baseball bat. Petitioner hit Gold 15 times over the head and Various parts of his body with the bat. Petitioner also hit Arthur on the thigh several times and on the shoulders. Gold suffered serious injuries. He then filed a police complaint and pressed charges against Petitioner.

Mrs. Diller, Michael and Arthur’s mother, then telephoned Petitioner’s father in Brooklyn to tell him about the attack and ask him to come out and check into the matter. She told Petitioner’s father that Petitioner had also embezzled money from her husband.

On July 10, 1981, Petitioner telephoned Mrs. Diller and threatened to kill the entire Diller family if she would not call his parents and retract what she had said.

The next morning, Arthur confronted Petitioner. They fought, and Petitioner hit Arthur with a pipe, breaking his nose and causing injuries requiring stitches on his face.

Gold had filed a police complaint over an earlier incident.

Then

On July 12, 1981, Petitioner waited for Michael to pick up his girlfriend from her apartment building. When Michael arrived in his car, she entered on the passenger side. Before she could close the car door, Petitioner grabbed the door, pulled it open, jumped on her lap, and hit her and Michael. Michael accelerated the car and Petitioner grabbed the wheel, causing the car to crash into a building. After the crash, Michael jumped out of the driver’s side and ran towards a park. Petitioner chased after him. Michael ran to the park office and dove through a half-open window. Petitioner lay on the window sill of the park office, facing Michael.

Petitioner had a knife, and Michael grabbed it cutting his hand. Petitioner pulled the knife away from Michael, stabbed him in the chest and twisted the blade, and then ran away. Petitioner walked calmly as if nothing had happened and rode away on his motorcycle.

Michael died shortly thereafter. He died of loss of blood and a stab wound through his lung and heart. Michael was 23 and Petitioner was 25 years of age.

That evening, Petitioner had dinner with his employer, Kelly Bixby, whom he had worked for as an attorney. At 12:30 a.m., Bixby called the police.

Petitioner had been in custody since his arrest on July 12, 1981. After his conviction in January 1983, Petitioner was sentenced to prison for 26 years to life with the possibility of parole.

He was paroled in 2013.

In support of his effort to prove his rehabilitation and present moral qualifications, Petitioner presented an impressive array of 17 highly reputable character witnesses credibly attesting on his behalf. They included numerous prominent community leaders in prisoner support organizations, six California attorneys, law professors, former incarcerated prisoners and friends, and a family member. Many of them have worked with Petitioner in their respective organizations during his incarceration and after his release from prison. Favorable character testimony from employers and attorneys are entitled to considerable weight. (Feinstein v. State Bar (1952) 39 Cal.2d 541, 547). Because judges and attorneys have a “strong interest in maintaining the honest administration of justice” (In the Matter of Brown (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 309, 319), “[t]estimony of members of the bar . . . is entitled to great consideration.” (Tardzff v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal.3d 395, 403.)

But

While the court commends Petitioner’s tremendous efforts in successfully integrating into society and commitment to making amends for his crime, Petitioner has not shown exemplary conduct over an extended period of time since his discharge from supervised release in November 2016. The burden of proof to show rehabilitation is indeed very heavy.

Cases authorizing admission on the basis of rehabilitation commonly involve a substantial period of exemplary conduct following the misdeeds…

The court finds that Petitioner Stephen Liebb has the requisite learning and ability in the general law and has passed the required MPRE. However, he has not established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated by a sustained period of exemplary conduct and thus possesses the present moral qualifications for reinstatement to the practice of law.

Luke Ford wrote about the case.

Note that the issue here is similar to the one that the Washington State Supreme Court dealt with in the Tarra Simmons admission case. (Mike Frisch)