Giddens, In re

Decision Date29 October 1981
Citation635 P.2d 166,177 Cal.Rptr. 673,30 Cal.3d 110
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 635 P.2d 166 In re Elroy Richard GIDDENS on Disbarment. L.A. 31367.

BY THE COURT:

We review and will adopt the recommendation by the State Bar that petitioner Elroy On June 2, 1977, petitioner, pursuant to a written plea bargain, pleaded guilty to a federal indictment charging him with conspiring to distribute controlled substances (amphetamines) in violation of federal law. (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).) He was sentenced to, and served, a term of two years imprisonment followed by a two-year special parole term.

R. Giddens be disbarred following his[30 Cal.3d 112] conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 6101, 6102; Cal.Rules of Court, rule 951.)

Petitioner was initially suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues on November 18, 1976. On November 9, 1978, the judgment of conviction described above having become final, we placed petitioner on interim suspension and issued an order to show cause. Following his filing of a response, we referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing and recommendation as to appropriate discipline.

After a hearing before the State Bar Court on May 15, 1980, the hearing panel recommended disbarment. The decision recites that culpability was clear and that on the record developed at the hearing alone two members of the panel recommended disbarment and one member favored actual suspension of three to five years. The panel then further considered the matter in light of a then pending recommendation of disbarment arising out of an unrelated disciplinary proceeding. Rule 571 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar Court permits the hearing panel, in making its determination of appropriate discipline, to consider a disciplinary recommendation or order made in a separate, formal disciplinary proceeding which is not yet final. In such cases the panel may make a recommendation as to discipline contingent upon the finality of discipline in the unrelated matter or it may state that its decision is made independently of the other proceeding. In the present case, following consideration of the separate proceeding, the panel unanimously recommended disbarment, and the review department of the State Bar Court thereafter unanimously adopted the hearing panel's recommendation of disbarment.

FACTS

Before his admission to the bar, petitioner served in the United States Navy for four years, receiving an honorable discharge. Over the next few years he managed a finance company, enlisted in the army, served in Vietnam, and thereafter joined the Anaheim Police Department. Petitioner studied law while employed as a police officer and was subsequently admitted to the practice of law on January 5, 1972.

In mid-1974, petitioner met a friend of a client who represented to petitioner that he purchased and sold turquoise in Arizona. Petitioner subsequently loaned money to this person ostensibly for the purpose of financing turquoise purchases with the understanding that the loan would be repaid with interest. At some point thereafter, in the words of the petitioner, "there arrived a time that I knew that he (the friend) was buying and selling amphetamines." Petitioner continued to supply funds and estimated at the hearing that he furnished between 30 and 40 percent of the money used to buy multi-100,000 lots of amphetamines during the period of his criminal involvement. Petitioner stated that he supplied approximately $20,000 over four to five months and realized therefrom a profit of $5,000 to $7,000.

In early 1975 petitioner became increasingly disturbed about his involvement in the scheme and decided to withdraw by closing his practice, selling his residence, and leaving California with his family. After touring the country, he settled in Texas where, in December 1976, he learned that he was under federal indictment. He then surrendered voluntarily.

After serving his prison term, petitioner returned to California and was employed by a mortgage company. He has not practiced law since 1975.

MITIGATION

At his State Bar Court hearing, petitioner called four witnesses who testified to his Petitioner has received no prior discipline other than the separate proceeding mentioned above, which we reviewed in Giddens v. State Bar (1981) 28 Cal.3d 730, 170 Cal.Rptr. 812, 621 P.2d 851, wherein we held that petitioner was entitled to a hearing de novo because he had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to present his defense. In view of that holding, we neither further discuss nor consider the circumstances underlying this earlier proceeding.

good character and reputation, legal abilities and devotion to his clients' interests. They opined that petitioner's criminal involvement was out of character and an [635 P.2d 168] isolated mistake. It was noted that his military record included the award of a Purple Heart and a Silver Star, and that he had fully cooperated with the authorities after his indictment.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner urges us to disregard the State Bar recommendation (1) because it was based in part on the disbarment recommendation in the separate proceeding which is not cognizable, and (2) because the recommendation is too severe in light of the mitigating factors.

While finding merit in petitioner's first contention because the prior proceeding has been remanded for a new hearing, we cannot ignore the fact that the hearing panel in the matter before us explicitly separated its recommendation into two components. The first, based on the record in this case alone, was the disbarment recommendation of two of the three panel members. The second, made following a consideration of the prior discipline, was the unanimous recommendation of disbarment. In fairness, it must be observed that the separation is somewhat clouded because the hearing transcript shows that the prior disciplinary matter was discussed by the panel immediately after the hearing on the present action and before closing statements. It thus appears that both recommendations were made after the panel had heard the evidence on the previous disciplinary proceedings. In addition, the review panel's recommendation may have been affected by the now invalid evidence.

Nonetheless, although we accord substantial weight to the recommendations of the State Bar, it is our duty to exercise independent judgment in determining the degree of discipline to be imposed. (Tenner v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 202, 206-207, 168 Cal.Rptr. 333, 617 P.2d 486; Inniss v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 552, 558, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Nadrich, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 25 Enero 1988
    ...disbarment in the absence of compelling mitigating circumstances. (Bus. & Prof.Code § 6101; see, e.g., In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116, 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166 [attorney disbarred for conspiring to distribute amphetamines].) However, the primary purpose of attorney disciplin......
  • Scott, In re, S010264
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 14 Enero 1991
    ...disbarment in the absence of compelling mitigating circumstances. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 6101; see, e.g., In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116, 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166 [attorney disbarred for conspiring to distribute amphetamines].) "When an attorney's misconduct is the product of ......
  • Possino, In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 5 Noviembre 1984
    ...he had no prior disciplinary record. (Id., at pp. 572-574, 99 Cal.Rptr. 865, 493 P.2d 97.) More on point is In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166. There, disbarment was found appropriate where the attorney lent substantial sums of money to an acquaintance after......
  • Menna, In re, S038139
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 4 Diciembre 1995
    ...he must affirmatively demonstrate over a prolonged period his sincere regret and rehabilitation."]; In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116, 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166 [requiring further proof of rehabilitation "during a period when petitioner is neither on parole ... nor under supervi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT