“Egregious Acts Of Dishonesty”

The California State Bar Court has recommended disbarment for “egregious acts of dishonesty”

This case is about an attorney’s egregious acts of dishonesty that occurred in his practice and continued through his disciplinary trial. Respondent Sergio Valdovinos Ramirez, admitted to practice law in California in 2017, was charged in 2022 with 19 counts of misconduct across five client matters. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) included multiple counts of moral turpitude for misappropriation, misrepresentations, and checks drawn against insufficient funds, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106. Valdovinos was also charged with failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to return unearned fees, and failure to keep one client apprised of significant case events. (§ 6068, subd. (m); Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 1.15(a), 1.16(e)(2).)

Following a trial, the hearing judge found Valdovinos culpable of all counts. The judge further found substantial aggravation due to multiple acts of misconduct, significant harm to clients, lack of candor with the court, lack of remorse, failure to make restitution, and no mitigation. The judge recommended disbarment, $123,115 in restitution, and $5,000 in monetary sanctions.

On review, Valdovinos concedes culpability for three counts of violating rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (failure to deposit funds in a client trust account). He does not dispute the hearing judge’s findings of culpability regarding three counts of moral turpitude for issuing checks with insufficient funds or challenge most findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Valdovinos argues that the judge erred in her other culpability findings due to judicial bias and misconduct and that insufficient evidence exists to support the remaining 13 counts. He seeks a remand and new trial. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) does not seek review and supports the judge’s decision.

After an independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find Valdovinos culpable of all 19 counts and agree with the hearing judge’s findings regarding aggravation and mitigation, as modified.4 We also modify the amount of restitution. Valdovinos’s claims of judicial bias and misconduct are not supported by the record. We conclude his disbarment is necessary for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.

The attorney was admitted in 2017.

One of the several matters at issue involved a high school friend who was the victim of a motor vehicle accident caused by a Uber driver

Valdovinos went to great lengths to give Mendez the false impression that he was making progress on her case and to hide the fact that he had not filed a lawsuit on her behalf, which is evidence that the misrepresentations were intentional. Accordingly, we affirm the hearing judge’s determination of culpability and find Valdovinos culpable of moral turpitude in violation of section 6106.

Claim of bias

Valdovinos argues on review that the hearing judge was biased against him, deprived him of the right to confront witnesses in limiting his cross examination, and erred in the admission of evidence. We have conducted a careful review of the record and find the claims of judicial bias and misconduct are not supported by the facts. Valdovinos stated evidentiary objections on the record, but he challenged few specific rulings on review…

Valdovinos also claims the hearing judge embarrassed him when she asked him whether his gambling addiction would be raised in mitigation. That the judge would assume Valdovinos had a gambling addiction is not entirely unreasonable, given that in a two-year period, from February 2021 through February 2023, he spent $886,535 in gambling chips from the Bicycle Casino and the Commerce Casino. Moreover, upon our review of the record, we determine that this question was not meant to embarrass Valdovinos but was intended to ascertain if he was pursuing a particular type of mitigation pursuant to standard 1.6(d). Gambling habits can create financial problems, which in turn, may potentially be a mitigating factor.

Conduct at hearing and rejected health claims

Valdovinos’s trial testimony was consistently not believable due to the significant amount of contradictory documentary and testimonial evidence in the record. As the hearing judge correctly noted, Valdovinos lied about the most easily verifiable facts. More egregiously, there is clear and convincing evidence that Valdovinos made purposeful misrepresentations to the Hearing Department and to OCTC about receiving chemotherapy treatment and having related complications in his successful efforts to not comply with court-imposed deadlines…In this regard, he doubled down on his misrepresentations each day of the trial, providing the judge and OCTC with a false name of a physician and dishonestly claiming he had signed an authorization to release his medical records, which he repeatedly asserted were forthcoming.

(Mike Frisch)