Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Crime Against Court Supervisor Results In Disbarment

An order of disbarment reported in the April 2012 California Bar Journal:

[An attorney] was disbarred Dec. 28, 2011, and ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

[The attorney] was convicted of felony stalking, with a hate crime enhancement, and misdemeanor making phone calls with the intent to annoy. In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that the convictions involved moral turpitude warranting disbarment.

The bar court’s review department denied the bar’s motion for summary disbarment in 2010, and referred the convictions to the hearing department for a moral turpitude determination.

Over a three-year period, [the attorney] repeatedly called and hung up on a woman who was once one of his supervisors at the Riverside County courthouse. He called 10 times a day, stopped for a short time and began again. The victim was reassigned to a different courthouse and had her work number changed when she began to fear for her safety. During the third year of calls, [he] spoke to the victim for the first time, telling her “something to the effect that ‘you may be able to pass as white on the outside, but I know you are black as the ace of spades,’” according to the disbarment recommendation. He also told the woman that caller ID could be blocked, which convinced her he intended harm.

A unit of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which investigates crimes against court employees, put a wire tap on the victim’s phone and obtained telephone company records that led to [the attorney], who eventually confessed. He first lied about his identity and denied his guilt.

(Mike Frisch)


Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Crime Against Court Supervisor Results In Disbarment:


Neither this nor the state bar summary is supported by the actual official records in this case. It is absolutely impossible to change a "no contest" plea to a guilty plea as each is terminal and causes immediate sentencing. Also, the supervisor never answered the phone, an answering machine went on for all calls. I don't know about anybody else, but my business phone is answered 100% live during business hours and after closing we just let it ring. If the author does not approve and post, any number of other complaint sites will do so unmoderated, that is what free speech is all abot.

Posted by: Robert | Oct 3, 2013 2:42:13 PM

Is this case actually for real? Felony stalking from phone calls?? Or is this some type of hoax? Most, if not all cases involving harassing phone calls involves thousands, or at least hundreds of phone calls. This case only had 43 in 6 months. Sounds like the attorney, if this is even real, didn't do anything. Hanging up on an answering machine is not the same as hanging up on a real person, everybody knows that. Surveys show that up to 82% of callers to a business hang up when reaching anything other than a live answer. If you could persuade anyone that hanging up on an answering machine is stalking, you could sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

Posted by: Mark | Aug 23, 2014 3:17:10 PM

Post a comment