Lack Of Insight
The California State Bar Court recommended disbarment concluding that mitigation was not sufficient to warrant a lesser sanction
Mir-Houtan Tony Kamran was charged with six counts of professional misconduct involving the misappropriation of almost $57,000 in entrusted funds meant to pay for the housing and care of a client’s brother. The hearing judge found culpability for five of the six charges and recommended Kamran’s disbarment due to the significant amount of money taken, Kamran’s lack of insight into his actions, and his failure to make restitution. Kamran appeals, asserting that no culpability should be found and all counts should be dismissed. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) supports the disbarment recommendation. After an independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find that disbarment is appropriate considering the standards, relevant case law, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Aggravating circumstances
Kamran’s lack of insight into his misconduct also calls for substantial weight in aggravation. (Std. 1.5(k).) While the law does not require false penitence, it does require that an attorney accept responsibility for wrongful acts and show some understanding of his culpability. (In the Matter of Katz (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 502, 511.) Kamran does not understand his responsibilities as a fiduciary holding funds for the benefit of another. He maintains that his actions were proper and fails to appreciate the seriousness of his wrongdoing. Kamran’s failure to accept responsibility is troubling and suggests future misconduct could recur.
Kamran’s argument that no harm resulted from his misconduct is patently incorrect. The record shows that the $80,000 was always meant to support Bahram’s living expenses after he was forced to move from the condominium he had lived in for almost 30 years. A portion was also intended to be reserved for Bahram’s funeral expenses. Only $23,002 went to support Bahram. Kamran took the rest, $56,998, which is more than 70 percent of the funds. He has not returned any of it. Bahram, an older man dealing with schizophrenia and with limited income, is now faced with more uncertainty as to how he will pay for his living expenses. Kamran’s actions caused significant harm to Bahram, a highly vulnerable victim, and his family. (Std. 1.5 (j), (n).) He owes $56,998 in restitution. (Std. 1.5(m).) Each of these factors in aggravation warrants an assignment of substantial weight.
Mitigation did not justify a lesser sanction
In considering the applicable standards, we first determine which standard specifies the most severe sanction for the at-issue misconduct. (Std. 1.7(a) [most severe sanction shall be imposed where multiple sanctions apply].) Here, standard 2.1(a) is the most severe and provides for disbarment for Kamran’s intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds. Standard 2.1(a) also provides that an attorney may avoid disbarment if the amount misappropriated is “insignificantly small” or “sufficiently compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.” Neither of those conditions applies here. Kamran intentionally misappropriated $56,998, a very significant amount of money. (See In the Matter of Spaith (Review Dept. 1996) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 511 [disbarment for intentional misappropriation of nearly $40,000 in single client matter].) His mitigation for practicing without discipline for 29 years and extraordinary good character evidence are very slight and do not come close to outweighing the substantial aggravation for significant harm, high level of vulnerability of the victim, multiple acts of misconduct, failure to make restitution, and indifference.
We find no reason to deviate from the presumed sanction of disbarment under standard 2.1(a). (Std. 1.1; Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5 [requiring clear reasons for departure from standards].) Kamran’s misconduct involves multiple acts of dishonesty amounting to moral turpitude. He tried to cover up his wrongdoings by blaming his bank and accounting program and implying that he had the money in his CTA when he did not. His failure to take responsibility for his actions is very concerning. Misappropriation “violates basic notions of honesty and endangers public confidence in the legal profession.” (Grim v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 21, 29.) The imposition of disbarment is required “[i]n all but the most exceptional of cases.” (Ibid.) We affirm the hearing judge’s discipline analysis and recommendation of disbarment. In addition to the cases discussed in the decision, we find this case is also similar to In the Matter of Jones, supra, 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 873, a case involving misappropriation, misrepresentations, and a failure to appreciate fiduciary duties when holding entrusted funds. We recommended Jones’s disbarment in his first disciplinary proceeding for misappropriating $175,000. Jones returned the funds, something Kamran has yet to do. Both Jones and Kamran exhibited a propensity for dishonesty. Their mitigating circumstances were similar, but Kamran has more aggravating circumstances. Under Jones, Kamran’s disbarment is appropriate.