Reinstatement Denied After Murder Conviction

A recent unpublished opinion of the California State Bar Court Review Department affirms the denial of reinstatement to an attorney convicted of a murder shortly after his 1980 admission to practice

Petitioner Stephen Liebb requests review of a hearing judge’s decision denying his reinstatement to the practice of law. In 1981, Liebb viciously attacked and killed his college friend, and violently beat the victim’s brother and another family friend. In January 1983, he was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Liebb was sentenced to 26-years-to-life in prison. He was released on parole in October 2013, after serving 31 years of his sentence, and remained on supervised release until November 2016. Nine months later, Liebb filed his petition for reinstatement. The hearing judge found that, given the seriousness of the crimes, Liebb did not demonstrate a sustained period of exemplary conduct during the 16 months between termination of his supervised release and the hearing on his petition for reinstatement. The judge denied his petition. Liebb asserts that the judge improperly focused only on the time after his discharge from supervised release, and that his time in prison, where he engaged in positive programming activities, should be given more weight. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) requests that we affirm the hearing judge’s decision.

We have independently reviewed the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), and find that the hearing judge’s opinion fairly and accurately details the facts and correctly applies the governing law. We focus our analysis on the key issue on review: Did Liebb present overwhelming proof of his rehabilitation by a sustained period of exemplary conduct following his discharge from supervised release? Like the hearing judge, we find that he did not.

The attorney was admitted in 1980 after graduating from UCLA Law School.

The crime involved an apartment he had sublet to the notorious Dr. Eugene Landy, best known for his “treatment” of Beach Boy Brian Wilson. 

In February 1981, Liebb rented apartment number 103 at Diller Apartments to Dr. Eugene Landy without informing Stanley or Altschuler. Liebb collected six months’ rent in advance, gave Dr. Landy a receipt that he signed as “Stephen Claymore,” and told Dr. Landy that he was a professional boxer. Liebb never provided Altschuler or Stanley with the rent he collected. Altschuler believed the apartment was empty.

On March 31, 1981, Liebb charged into Altschuler’s office, causing a commotion and repeatedly insulting Altschuler. Joe Gold, a friend of the Diller family, was also at the office. As Liebb was leaving the office, he angrily said to Gold, “You want it next?” Altschuler told Gold not to respond and Gold stopped talking to Liebb and resumed working. When Gold went to the elevators in the hall, Liebb came out of the office lobby area and started to threaten and swing at him. Liebb chased Gold back into the lobby area, struck him hard on the side of the head, put his hands around Gold’s neck, and pushed him toward the door of the waiting room with great force. Several people attempted to pull Liebb away from Gold before Liebb fled the premises. After Gold filed a police report, Liebb called him on three occasions to try to talk him into withdrawing his complaint. Gold eventually dropped the charges.

At the end of April 1981, Liebb vacated his apartment. Altschuler found the apartment badly damaged—with chairs turned over, windows broken, stains on the floor, and filthy sinks and fixtures.

Gold assumed management and

At about 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 1981, Gold, Michael, and Michael’s brother, Arthur, left Diller Apartments. As they were leaving, Liebb jumped out of the bushes, and charged up the front stairs carrying a baseball bat. He attacked Gold with the bat, hitting him 15 times over his head and body. As Arthur tried to intervene, Liebb hit him on the thigh and shoulders several times. Gold was seriously injured and filed a police report against Liebb.

Michael and Arthur’s mother, Dorothy, telephoned Liebb’s father in Brooklyn, told him about the attack, and asked him to come to California to help with the situation. On July 9, 1981, Liebb repeatedly called Dorothy and threatened to kill the entire Diller family if she did not call his parents and retract what she had said. Dorothy refused. After speaking with Dorothy, Arthur decided to talk to Liebb the next morning.

On July 10, Arthur went to Liebb’s apartment building and confronted him. They traded blows, and Liebb hit Arthur with a pipe, breaking his nose and causing injuries that required stitches on his face.

Then

Two days later, on July 12, Liebb hid behind a tree and waited for Michael to pick up his girlfriend, Jody Popkin, from her apartment building. Liebb was wearing a motorcycle helmet with a tinted shield that covered his face, and carrying a knife he had recently purchased. When Michael arrived, Popkin opened the passenger side door and entered the vehicle. Liebb ran up, grabbed the door before she could close it, and jumped onto Popkin. Liebb hit her and then began to attack Michael. Michael accelerated the car, and Liebb grabbed the steering wheel, causing the car to crash into a building. After the crash, Michael jumped out of the driver’s side and ran toward a park. Liebb chased Michael to the park office, where Michael dove through a half-open window. Liebb lay across the window sill, holding the knife. Michael grabbed the knife and cut his own hand. He pleaded with Liebb to stop, but Liebb stabbed Michael in the chest, and twisted the blade. As Michael lay mortally injured, Liebb walked calmly away and then left the scene on his motorcycle. Michael died shortly thereafter from loss of blood and a stab wound through his lung and heart. He was 23 years old. Liebb admitted that his murder was premeditated.

After conviction

In March of 1989, Liebb was involved in a prison fight with another inmate. A Rules Violation Report indicated that Liebb continued to attack the inmate after being ordered to stop and after the other man stopped fighting. An investigation into the attack determined that it was reasonable to conclude that Liebb had engaged in the fight as a diversion from the murder of another inmate that occurred the same day, in which he was suspected of being a co-conspirator.

Liebb was considered for and found unsuitable for parole six times. Each time, the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board) found that Liebb would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society and a threat to public safety if released from prison.

Eventually

in 2012, the Board granted Liebb parole based on his demonstration of remorse at the hearing, his identification of character defects that negatively influenced his behavior in the past, a positive risk assessment report, his positive programming while in prison, and his 21-year history without discipline. In January 2013, the Governor exercised his discretion to reverse the grant of parole, based on the especially atrocious and cruel offense and on Liebb’s lack of insight. Liebb challenged this finding by filing a writ of  habeas corpus. On August 22, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted the habeas petition and vacated the Governor’s decision. Liebb was released from San Quentin on October 30, 2013.

Liebb complied with his parole until he was discharged from supervised release on November 15, 2016.

The nature of the offense placed a heavy burden on petitioner that he had failed to meet

Liebb asserts that the hearing judge wrongly focused on the period of exemplary conduct after his supervised release ended and argues that more weight should be given to his positive programming in prison and during parole. However, the judge correctly focused on the time following Liebb’s discharge from supervised release and determined that the less than two years between his discharge and his reinstatement hearing was insufficient to make the required showing of rehabilitation…

As the hearing judge found, Liebb has made strides toward showing his rehabilitation. Much of his work in prison involved self-help activities and groups. After release from prison, he engaged in additional self-help programs, as well as therapy. However, these activities alone do not demonstrate truly exemplary conduct in the sense of returning something to the community Liebb harmed. As such, they are somewhat minimized because they contribute substantially to his personal well-being instead of paying back the community he harmed…

Also, while the hearing judge found that Liebb demonstrated remorse for his crimes and his victims, remorse alone does not demonstrate rehabilitation. A truer indication of Liebb’s rehabilitation will be if he can demonstrate exemplary conduct over an extended period of time that establishes his moral fitness to practice law.

This issue – when to start the rehabilitation clock – was raised in the Tarra Simmons admissions case.

The Washington State Supreme Court accepted the proposition that she be given credit for her rehabilitation and treatment while still incarcerated. (Mike Frisch)