Opinion ID: 1386894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hubbard Matter

Text: In April 1986, Monica Hubbard hired petitioner, through Drivers' Defense Clinic (Drivers), to represent her after she was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Petitioner received a $175 advance payable to Drivers, for which he negotiated a guilty plea entered in absentia in May 1986. Despite repeated requests from Hubbard, petitioner never sent Hubbard the paperwork from the plea bargain, including information on the sheriff's work program that Hubbard was required to attend. Hubbard was arrested on December 2, 1986, for failure to appear in the sheriff's work program. Petitioner obtained Hubbard's release the following day. He did not charge her for these additional services. Hubbard continued to call petitioner for two months on a daily basis, seeking the paperwork from the plea bargain. She never received the copies of the court orders from petitioner, but eventually served her sentence and enrolled in a sheriff's work program on her own. Hubbard did not testify at the default hearing on September 5, 1989; instead, the State Bar Court relied upon her declaration and associated exhibits. The hearing judge expressed confusion as to exactly what constituted the paperwork that Hubbard sought, and questioned whether petitioner had a duty to Hubbard after she entered her plea in December. In his tentative view as to culpability, the hearing judge found only that the State Bar had established that [petitioner] did not provide [Hubbard] the paperwork, he should have done so, but [the judge believed] that [the disciplinary violation was] pretty much limited to that. The hearing judge found petitioner's failure to send the documents to Hubbard constituted a failure to communicate. He ultimately found that the State Bar had not established that petitioner failed to refund an advanced fee by clear and convincing evidence.