Reinstatement Petition Dismissed
A petition for reinstatement has been dismissed with prejudice by the California State Bar Court Review Department
Patel was admitted to practice law in California on December 6, 1999. He maintained a discipline-free record and resigned without charges pending, effective February 10, 2017. After Patel’s resignation in California, he became licensed to practice law in Nevada on May 9, 2018.
Patel filed his petition on January 10, 2019. OCTC filed its response on May 17, requesting to waive any hearing and stating it did not oppose the petition. The hearing judge filed her decision on July 29, recommending that Patel’s petition be granted.
Then
On August 27, 2019, OCTC filed a motion to reopen the record, pursuant to rule 5.113(B), based on newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence included numerous emails sent by Patel to various members of the legal community with profanity-laden insults and disparaging remarks. Patel opposed the motion on September 25. The hearing judge granted OCTC’s motion to reopen the record on October 29. Patel sought reconsideration, which the judge denied. Patel then sought to disqualify the judge and also another judge assigned to decide the disqualification motion, but he was unsuccessful in these challenges.
Petitioner opposed reopening the record
We find no merit to Patel’s challenge. In a State Bar Court proceeding, a party may make a motion for the Hearing Department to reopen the record to present additional evidence at any time before the period to request review by the Review Department expires.
Dismissal
The hearing judge dismissed Patel’s petition because he failed to attend a properly noticed deposition scheduled for December 15, 2022, and a court-ordered deposition on January 10, 2023. Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse of the discovery process under the Civil Discovery Act…A permissible sanction in the State Bar Court under the Civil Discovery Act is a terminating sanction that dismisses the action.
Conclusion
One of the underlying purposes of reinstatement proceedings is to insure only persons of good moral character are reinstated, and therefore the State Bar Court may consider any act or conduct that is relevant to moral character regardless of when or where it occurred. (In the Matter of Kirwan, supra, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at p. 634.) We find Patel’s actions that occurred after he filed his reinstatement petition to be sufficiently concerning. Hence, OCTC was justified in seeking to reopen the reinstatement proceeding, and Patel’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations was sufficient for the hearing judge to dismiss his petition. Therefore, we affirm the judge’s decision to dismiss Anthony Aanand Patel’s petition for reinstatement to the practice of law with prejudice. Rule 5.124(I) states, “Dismissal may be ordered as a discovery sanction. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown, dismissal is with prejudice.” Although Patel’s petition is dismissed with prejudice, this opinion does not preclude him from filing a subsequent petition for reinstatement when he chooses to do so. (Rule 5.442(A).)
(Mike Frisch)