Opinion ID: 2336375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 38

Heading: discipline recommendation

Text: In another case regarding an attorney unjustly defiant in the face of multiple contempt citations, the Supreme Court said, Other than outright deceit, it is difficult to imagine conduct in the course of legal representation more unbefitting an attorney. ( Barnum v. State Bar, supra, 52 Cal.3d 104, 112 [276 Cal.Rptr. 147, 801 P.2d 390].) Another attorney at war with the courts, Betsy Lebbos, was disbarred by the Supreme Court after it found that [i]t is evident that [Lebbos] has no appreciation that her method of practicing law is totally at odds with the professional standards of this state. ( Lebbos v. State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 37, 45 [278 Cal.Rptr. 845, 806 P.2d 317].) Although the following quote described a different abusive litigant, Walter Alexander Varakin, his misconduct in pursuing four lawsuits is far outstripped by the magnitude and scope of Respondent's actions, Respondent's repeated acts of moral turpitude demonstrate that he is no longer worthy of membership in the bar. Nothing the attorney discipline system can do will prevent respondent from continuing to abuse the legal system as a litigant, if he so chooses. But disbarring respondent will at least prevent him from continuing his abusive course of conduct under the cloak of authority conferred on him by his membership in the bar. ( In the Matter of Varakin, supra, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 191.) These conclusions are no less true of Respondent. Respondent's disbarment is required under the case law, the Standards, the facts, and the equities.