March 2009 Vol. 29 No.

3 | An E-Publication of the Los Angeles County Bar Association

To Err is HumanOr is It Moral Turpitude?
By Ellen A. Pansky, member , LACBA Pr ofessi onal Responsi bi li ty and Ethi cs Commi ttee.
Pansky, of Pansky Mar kle Ham LLP, speci ali zes i n the defense of attor neys, bar appli cants,
and other pr ofessi onals i n r egulator y and li censur e pr oceedi ngs, and r epr esents both plai nti ffs
and defendants i n ci vi l acti ons. She consults wi th and advi ses lawyer s i n legal ethi cs and r i sk
management, and fr equently ser ves as an exper t wi tness i n legal malpr acti ce pr oceedi ngs. The
opi ni ons expr essed ar e her own. epansky@panskymarkle.com
Just as do all other human beings, lawyers sometimes make mistakes. Such mistakes may result from
misunderstanding or misinterpreting gray areas of law. Sometimes, mistakes take the form of simple negligence,
e.g., hitting the Reply to All button when sending a sensitive e-mail meant for the client alone. Sometimes,
despite having appropriate systems in place, a lawyer or the lawyers staff fails to calendar an important date
such as the statute of limitations.
Often, a client file will be misplaced, and the lawyer will delay completing the services for which he or she was
retained. At some point, the attorneys error in misplacing the file will result in an undue delay in the clients
matter, which could lead a State Bar disciplinary prosecutor to conclude that the lawyer engaged in a willful
failure to perform in violation of Rule 3-110 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Even a single case of
failure to perform has been known to result in the filing of a disciplinary charge.
Perhaps the most serious errors relate to the maintenance and management of the client trust account. An error
in client trust account management may include failing to deposit client funds in an account that is designated
and dedicated as a depository exclusively used for client funds, or mistakenly depositing the lawyers own funds
into the trust account. Where trust funds are deposited into the lawyers business operating account, or where
the lawyer deposits personal funds into the trust account, an improper commingling of personal funds and client
funds may result, constituting a violation of Rule 4-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In fact, failing
to keep particular types of bookkeeping records relating to the trust account may constitute a violation of Rule 4-
100(C). Thus, an extended failure to comply with recordkeeping and accounting requirements could result in the
imposition of discipline even in the absence of client harm.
It is well established that simple negligence will not form the basis of a State Bar disciplinary finding. For
example, more than 50 years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that simple neglect would not be
sufficient for a statutory violation. (Call v. State Bar, 45 Cal. 2d 104, 109 (1955).) This concept has been
repeated on numerous occasions over the decades. Both the supreme court and the California State Bar Court
have repeatedly reiterated that only gross, habitual, or pervasive negligence will establish a basis for discipline.
(See Innis v. State Bar, 20 Cal. 3d 552, 556 (1978); and In the Matter of Torres, Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 138 (Rev.
Dept. 2004).)
Another area of concern to the State Bar is failure to comply with a court order. If an attorney flouts a court
order, that would be considered an improper act that may constitute moral turpitude. In Maltaman v. State Bar,
43 Cal. 3d 924, 951 (1987), the supreme court noted that under certain circumstances, an attorneys
disobedience [of court orders], even when he [or she] acts in a nonprofessional or personal capacity...constitutes
moral turpitude within the meaning of section 6106. Of course, distinction must be made between a negligent
failure to comply with a court order and the type of extreme disregard for the legal system that is necessary for a
finding of unfitness to practice and moral turpitude.
If an attorney is found to have habitually disregarded a clients interests by either recklessly or repeatedly failing
to provide competent legal services, the attorney may be found to have committed gross negligence. In turn,
gross negligence has often been the basis for a finding of willful violation of Business and Professions Code
2009 Los Angeles County Bar Association Disclaimer and Proprietary Notice
Privacy Policy Questions@lacba.org Contact Sitemap
Section 6106, moral turpitude.
The State Bar Review Department held in In the Matter of Moriarty, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 9 (Review Dept.
1999): gross negligence is a well-established basis for finding an act of moral turpitude. However, it would be
incorrect to conclude that every act of gross negligence necessarily compels a conclusion that an attorney
engaged in an act of moral turpitude. If a lawyer creates a false impression or makes a misrepresentation
through factual statements that the lawyer knows to be untrue, as contrasted with careless misstatements, such
conduct may in certain circumstances constitute a violation of Business and Professions Code Section 6106. (In
the Matter of Maloney and Versik, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 774, 786 (Review Dept. 2005).) On the other hand,
a lawyers good faith acts predicated on a mistake of fact do not constitute moral turpitude. For example, where a
successor attorney settled cases on which a predecessor counsel had worked, then made repeated efforts to
obtain the consent of predecessor counsel to endorse the settlement drafts, and ultimately put the predecessor
counsel on notice that the drafts would be endorsed and deposited into the client trust account so that the clients
could receive the undistributed portion of the settlement proceeds, the State Bar Court Review Department
refused to find that the successor attorney had engaged in an act of moral turpitude. (In the Matter of
Respondent H, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 234 (Review Dept. 1992). Also see In the Matter of Lazarus, 1 Cal. State
Bar Ct. Rptr. 387, 397-398 (Review Dept. 1991), in which no moral turpitude was found where the attorney
simulated the clients signature to deposit a settlement draft after the client had provided authority under the
retainer agreement to permit the lawyer to endorse the clients name.)
Many lawyers find it hard to believe that negligent failure to provide legal services can rise to the level of a
disciplinary offense, let alone that repeated failure to perform may be sufficient to constitute an act of moral
turpitude. However, the State Bar of California regularly charges lawyers with alleged violations of Business and
Professions Code Section 6106, based on negligent acts such as failure to comply with the trust account rules,
and repeatedly failing to provide legal services with competence.
It is a mistake to assume that the State Bar will decline to investigate a lawyers extended period of gross
inattention to client matters notwithstanding a lawyers lengthy history of blemish-free practice.
It is well recognized that members of the legal profession experience substance abuse problems and depressive
illness at a rate higher than most other professions. Left untreated, substance abuse and depression often lead to
inattention to an attorneys professional obligations. Most unfortunately, lawyers often find themselves the
subject of disciplinary proceedings stemming from burnout, midlife crisis, or more serious disorders. It is
crucially important to recognize these issues in ourselves and in our colleagues rather than allowing professional
inactivity or inaction to snowball into a serious disciplinary offense or, worse, a life-threatening situation.
As lawyers, we should heighten our awareness and take appropriate steps to address instances of inattention
to client matters. To this end, the State Bars confidential Lawyer Assistance Program provides counseling and
a supportive program for the recovery from chemical dependency and/or mental health disorders. Fi nd out
mor e about the Lawyer Assi stance Pr ogr am her e.
Find past Ethics articles here.