Reciprocal Sanction To Real Estate License

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed to denial of relief in a challenge to a reciprocal suspension matter

After extensive California State Bar litigation, the California Supreme Court in 2021 suspended Roshan’s law license for misconduct. Shortly thereafter, the [Department of Real Estate]—an administrative agency charged with the “protection” of “buyers of real property and those persons dealing with real estate licensees”—initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against Roshan’s real estate license. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10050(b); see also id. § 10177(f) (disciplinary actions by another agency may be grounds for license suspension or revocation). Roshan’s fight against the DRE proceeding—which included attempts to subpoena and depose the California Supreme Court and California State Bar—led him to sue the DRE in federal court for alleged constitutional violations.

Abstention

In effect, Roshan’s “challenge amounts to an attack on California’s administrative review procedures as a whole. Baffert, 332 F.3d at 619. But there is no Younger exception for California administrative proceedings. See id. at 621–22
(abstaining under Younger from a California administrative action suspending a horse-racing license). Thus, as a quasi-criminal enforcement proceeding, the DRE proceeding is “of a character to warrant federal-court deference.” Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 434.

III. CONCLUSION

Because the Younger requirements are satisfied and Roshan has not made out a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or  some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate,” the district court properly abstained. Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765–66 (quoting Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435).

The State Bar Court decision is linked here.

Roshan committed multiple acts of misconduct, the gravamen being the unfair business dealings and breach of his fiduciary duties to his client for his self-interest, including his overreaching in attempting to obtain control of his client’s intellectual property. His attempt to also have her pay him for the dubious value he brought to the partnership and his deceitful conduct toward an unrepresented defendant are particularly distasteful. While this disciplinary proceeding is his first, Roshan’s actions demonstrate a complete violation of the faith and confidence that his client placed in him, which, along with our conclusion that his aggravation evidence outweighs his mitigation evidence, clearly merit a two-year actual suspension under our case law and as recommended by the hearing judge. We conclude this discipline is necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. Additionally, as required by standard 1.2(c)(1) given our recommendation of two years’ actual suspension, Roshan must provide proof of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law before he returns to practice.

(Mike Frisch)