The California State Bar Court Review Department recommends disbarment

Partington was admitted to practice law in California on January 15, 1970. He served for several years as a civil defense attorney before the United States Navy General Court-Martial Court in Hawaii. In 2010, a JAG discipline order was issued against him for filing an appellate brief that contained false and misleading statements. He was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in any proceeding before the Department of the Navy. He was also suspended for one year from appearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

In 2017, the California Supreme Court disciplined Partington in a reciprocal matter based on the JAG order (Partington I). He violated his probation terms in Partington I, and the Supreme Court issued a second discipline order (Partington II), that became effective January 12, 2018. It was properly served on Partington and subdivision (c) of rule 9.203 no later than February 21. d required him to comply with subdivision (a) of rule 9.202 by February 11, 2018 and had not yet filed a rule 9.20 compliance declaration.

On January 9, 2018, the State Bar Office of Probation (Probation) sent Partington a letter reminding him that his rule 9.20 compliance declaration was due on February 21. On the same day, the letter was uploaded to his State Bar profile. Probation also emailed him that the reminder letter had been added to his member profile. On February 23, Probation mailed a letter to Partington pointing out that his compliance declaration had not been filed by the February 21, 2018 deadline. Partington’s pretrial Stipulation indicates that he did not comply with rule 9.20 by the due dates and had not yet filed a rule 9.20 compliance declaration

Partington testified that he violated the rule 9.20 order so that he could appear before the State Bar Court and challenge the JAG findings and order. He testified: “The only reason I didn’t comply, your Honor, is I can only hope to litigate, and find a Court that will review what the Navy did to me, and agree, because it’s so egregious on the record, that I am, in fact, innocent . . . .” He further testified: “The only way I can litigate this [JAG proceeding] is by not complying [with rule 9.20], and coming before this Court and saying something is seriously wrong here . .

Indeed

Partington argues that he was justified in violating the rule 9.20 order to obtain judicial review because the JAG proceeding was “a sham,” he is “innocent,” and he has been “denied his right to judicial review by this court as well as federal courts.” We reject this justification and his contention that no court has addressed his due process claims as to the JAG proceeding.

(Mike Frisch)