An Atypical DUI

The California State Bar Court Review Department recommended a three-year suspension with credit for approximately 29 months served and fitness for a number of issues, primarily a driving while intoxicated offense.

The driving offense

On the morning of May 31, 2018, Madden drank “moonshine,”  as she had not planned on leaving the house. Madden allowed her boyfriend to borrow her rental car to pick up his medications. The boyfriend drove and Madden accompanied him as passenger—only she was on the rental car contract. While on the drive, they began to argue and the boyfriend eventually parked the car in a strip mall parking lot and walked away. Madden testified that the boyfriend had yelled at her and she felt abandoned when he left. She walked to a coffee shop and accidentally dropped her phone into a toilet. With no working phone, she decided to drive to a store to get a new one.

While driving, Madden testified that she began to feel the effects of the moonshine and decided she should turn around at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and go home. In the arrival lanes at SFO, Madden collided with a parked town car, owned and driven by Harbans Hunjan. Hunjan was outside the vehicle after loading his passenger’s luggage. The collision caused the town car to hit Hunjan, throwing him several feet into the street. He hit his head and lost consciousness. The passenger exited the town car to assist Hunjan. Madden remained in the rental car. Hunjan was transported to the hospital in an ambulance. He was hospitalized for three days, had three spinal fractures, bruising on his leg, and neck injuries, which required wearing a neck brace.

An interim suspension was ordered due to the ensuing conviction

The interim suspension went into effect on December 1, 2019, while Madden was serving her sentence in county jail and concluded on March 24, 2022, when we vacated the interim suspension imposed on August 29, 2019.

Charges of non-compliance with discipline orders and unauthorized practice were sustained but with mitigation

The surrounding facts and circumstances of Madden’s rule 9.20 violation do not excuse her misconduct, but they offer important context. Our August 29, 2019 order did not explicitly repeat the rule 9.20 directive from the earlier July 5 order. Also, the August 29 order stated that the interim suspension ordered on July 5 was “vacated.” But the rule 9.20 directive was not vacated, which was understood by Probation, who alerted Madden several times that she was to file rule 9.20 compliance before January 10, 2020. But Madden asserts that after the August 29 order, she believed she no longer had any rule 9.20 obligations, which is conceivable considering we stated the July 5 interim suspension order was vacated. She reported to jail on October 26, 2019, went on interim suspension on December 1, 2019, and remained incarcerated when she was required to file the rule 9.20 compliance declaration on January 10, 2020. She eventually sent a rule 9.20 declaration to Probation, but never filed one with the State Bar Court or verified with the court her obligations. We acknowledge that our August 29 order was not as clear as it could have been, and that Madden was incarcerated when compliance was due. Further, she attempted to file documents with the Supreme Court on August 29, before she was aware of the August 29 order.

The UPL Charge

Madden’s UPL violation also evidences important extenuating circumstances. She practiced law in Stancil, but was forthright in alerting the Supreme Court that she was in custody and had been enrolled as involuntary inactive, that she had tried to file a notice of her suspension with the Supreme Court on August 29, and that she remained on interim suspension. She sought confirmation that she could remain as an attorney on the case and asked for the case to be stayed until after her release from jail.

She also had slapped a postal employee

Her assault of a postal worker was serious misconduct, but did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, nor did it result in any appreciable harm to the victim. Her actions were moderately mitigated by personal stress in her life.

As to the DUI

Clearly, Madden should not have driven the car when she had been drinking. But the facts do not represent the typical situation of a driver who knows she is drunk and gets behind the wheel and drives. She never intended to drive, but events occurred that caused her to drive, and thereafter, she started to feel the effects of the alcohol.

Sanction

While Madden’s misconduct was very serious, she was on interim suspension for a long time: from July 29, 2019, until August 29, 2019, and from December 1, 2019, until March 24, 2022. To protect the public, she will not be relieved of actual suspension until she demonstrates her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and present learning and ability in the general law.

(Mike Frisch)