No Ghost Of A Chance
The California State Bar Court Review Department has recommended disbarment of an attorney
This is Chad Thomas Pratt’s fourth disciplinary proceeding. He was charged with six counts of misconduct surrounding his handling of cases in federal and state court involving ghostwritten pleadings and subsequent filings based on his association with a former client. The hearing judge found him culpable of three counts, including that Pratt committed an act of moral turpitude by misrepresentation, sought to mislead a judge, and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). After considering the nature and extent of the misconduct, in balance with aggravation and lack of compelling mitigation, the judge recommended disbarment.
Pratt appeals. He contends he is not culpable of the alleged misconduct and ultimately seeks dismissal. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) does not appeal and asks that we affirm the hearing judge’s disbarment recommendation. Upon our independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we agree with the judge’s culpability findings and most of the aggravating and mitigating findings. Pratt committed moral turpitude, has a history of engaging in similar misconduct, and did not prove compelling mitigation. As he has three prior records of discipline, all resulting in actual suspension, disbarment is appropriate under our disciplinary standards and case law.
Present matter
Pratt was admitted to practice law in California on December 4, 1990. He has three prior records of discipline. The misconduct underlying this proceeding stems from Pratt’s representation of Scott Rosenstiel and Rosenstiel’s affiliates in federal and state court cases.
Since 2013, Rosenstiel has been seeking to gain title through numerous lawsuits related to property located at 8801 Riderwood Drive, Sunland, California 91040 (Riderwood Property). In June 2017, Rosenstiel was designated as a vexatious litigant by the California courts and in response he used different attorneys—Robert Bachman, Joseph Rosenblit, and Pratt—to continue to pursue his claims in court. He also used acquaintances to serve as shadow plaintiffs. In each of these cases, Rosenstiel prepared and filed the pleadings with the court under his then-attorney’s name, affixing the attorney’s electronic signature to the documents and using his attorney’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) account to file the documents in federal court.
Findings
We agree with the hearing judge that the record supports a finding that Pratt made misrepresentations and sought to be deceitful when questioned by Judge Gutierrez during the district court’s July 29 hearing. We reject as unavailing Pratt’s argument on review that there are reasonable doubts as to whether he drafted the pleadings because OCTC did not present Judge Gutierrez as a witness and therefore OCTC did not present any evidence against him. The corroborating documentary evidence in the record describes the substance, format, and writing style of the at-issue pleadings in comparison to Riderwood Property court filings in related cases that were written by Rosenstiel—this evidence strongly supports a finding that Rosenstiel, rather than Pratt, drafted the pleadings in the Lewis and Rosenstiel matters. While testifying at the disciplinary trial, Pratt stated he “collaborated” with his client in drafting the pleadings. The judge rejected this testimony, finding the testimonies of Murphy and Rosenblit credible and consistent with other documentary evidence to suggest that Pratt did not draft the pleadings.
Mitigation
We consider the emotional difficulties Pratt faced as extremely stressful in nature and find evidence of it contributing to his misconduct. Pratt testified that his wife’s health slowly deteriorated over the course of one year, and we note that Pratt’s misconduct in the Lewis and Rosenstiel matters began in 2019, which was shortly after his wife’s passing and him using alcohol to cope. Accordingly, we assign some weight in mitigation for emotional difficulties due to his family circumstances.
Nonetheless
The Supreme Court has held that acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty warrant disbarment because they show the attorney “has no appreciation that [his] method of practicing law is totally at odds with the professional standards of this state.” (Lebbos v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 37, 45.) And like the hearing judge, we are equally troubled by Pratt repeatedly seeking to mislead Judge Gutierrez and allowing his former client Rosenstiel, a declared vexatious litigant, to prepare and submit filings under his name. (See In the Matter of Downey (Review Dept. 2009) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 151,157 [misleading statements are troubling and oppose fundamental rules of ethics—common honesty—without which profession is “worse than valueless” in administration of justice].) Accordingly, the public, the courts, and the profession are best protected if Pratt is disbarred.
(Mike Frisch)