Opinion ID: 1259566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abatement for Inactive Status Proceedings

Text: Petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceedings should be abated, pursuant to section 6007, subdivision (c), and that the State Bar should be ordered to investigate whether probable cause exists to institute an inactive status proceeding under section 6007, subdivision (b). In support of this contention, he points to his own testimony and to that of his psychiatrist, Dr. Markoff. That testimony suggested that petitioner's misconduct was attributable to long-term stress and emotional disorders, and that continuing emotional problems adversely affect his competence to practice law. [16] Petitioner argues that, rather than being disbarred or suspended, he should be enrolled as an inactive member until he can prove that his disability no longer exists. The requirements of section 6007, subdivisions (b) and (c) were recently addressed by this court in Newton v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 480 [189 Cal. Rptr. 372, 658 P.2d 735]. In Newton, the hearing panel found Newton culpable on six counts of professional misconduct and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law. As the record in Newton reveals, the review department, on the basis of Newton's written submissions and oral argument in a review department meeting, found that Newton was unable due to mental illness to assist in his defense of the disciplinary charges. Accordingly, it abated the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to rule 644 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar. [17] The review department also recommended that a formal investigation be conducted to determine whether probable cause existed to initiate inactive status proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (b). [18] An examiner from the State Bar investigation department conducted a one-hour interview with Newton, but did not review the transcript of the disciplinary proceeding. Relying solely upon the interview, the examiner found insufficient cause to institute section 6007 proceedings and recommended that the disciplinary proceedings be resumed. ( Id., 33 Cal.3d at p. 483.) The review department adopted the examiner's finding that there was no probable cause to institute a proceeding under section 6007, subdivision (b) and no such proceeding was conducted. Without making a finding that Newton's mental condition no longer made him unable to assist in his defense, the review department also terminated the abatement and resumed the disciplinary proceeding. At the conclusion of that proceeding, it recommended that Newton be suspended. Concluding that the State Bar had proceeded incorrectly, this court declined to impose the recommended discipline. It was determined that Newton's written submissions and oral argument in this court amply confirmed the serious questions raised by the record regarding the effect of Newton's mental condition on his ability to assist in his own defense. [19] Accordingly, the disciplinary proceeding was abated pursuant to section 6007, subdivision (c). (2) (See fn. 20.) In addition, this court made its own finding of probable cause and ordered the State Bar to institute proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (b). ( Id., at p. 484.) [20] Relying upon Newton, petitioner requests this court to order the State Bar to conduct a formal section 6007, subdivision (b) probable cause investigation. Pending the outcome of that inquiry, he seeks an order abating the disciplinary proceeding. It is clear in light of Newton that petitioner would not be entitled to the requested abatement even if this court were to order a probable cause investigation. (3a) As Newton demonstrated, the pendency of a probable cause investigation or formal proceeding under section 6007, subdivision (b) will abate a disciplinary proceeding if, and only if, the State Bar Court or this court determines that, due to mental illness, [21] the attorney is unable to assist in the defense of the disciplinary proceeding. (Rule 644, Rules Proc. of State Bar; § 6007, subd. (c).) Unlike Newton, petitioner does not argue that his alleged mental illness has adversely affected his ability to assist in the defense of this disciplinary proceeding. Nor would the record support such a contention. [22] Accordingly, abatement of the disciplinary proceeding would not be proper even if a formal probable cause investigation were ordered. [23] Petitioner's contention that the State Bar should have formally investigated whether there was sufficient cause to institute proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (b) presents a separate, but related, issue not resolved by Newton. Newton addressed only the proper scope of a formal investigation into the propriety of initiating inactive status proceedings once the State Bar has decided that such an investigation is necessary. It did not examine whether section 6007 imposes a duty on the State Bar to conduct such an investigation in the first instance. In this case, the State Bar, prior to instituting the disciplinary proceeding, considered the section 6007 alternative. However, the investigation department, the department of trial counsel, the hearing panel, and the review department all saw insufficient indication of mental illness on the part of petitioner to warrant conducting a formal probable cause inquiry before rejecting the section 6007 route. [24] Thus, no formal inquiry was conducted. (4) Section 6007, subdivision (b) does not require the State Bar in every disciplinary case to conduct a formal investigation to determine whether probable cause exists to institute an inactive status proceeding. The statute simply prohibits the State Bar from instituting such a proceeding without first finding that there is probable cause to do so. If the State Bar decides that a formal probable cause investigation is warranted, Newton requires that the investigation include a review of the transcript of the disciplinary proceeding. The State Bar is not required to conduct such an investigation, however, either in response to a request by the attorney facing disciplinary charges [25] or on its own initiative. The decision is left to the discretion of the State Bar. That discretion was not abused in this case. (3b) If the State Bar had conducted a formal inquiry at the time advocated by petitioner and had made a finding of probable cause and instituted a section 6007, subdivision (b) proceeding, there would still have been no basis for abating the disciplinary proceeding since petitioner was competent to assist in his defense. (Rule 644, Rules Proc. of State Bar.) The State Bar would have had to conduct parallel proceedings. Petitioner would have been entitled to have the disciplinary proceeding terminated as a result of the section 6007 proceeding only if that proceeding had been concluded first, and only if it had been found in that proceeding that petitioner, due to mental illness, had been unable at the time of the charged offenses to form the requisite culpable intent. [26] (See Hyland v. State Bar, supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 774; cf. Newton v. State Bar, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 484, fn. 3.) Petitioner contends only that his alleged mental illness is a mitigating factor, not that it rendered him unable to form the intent that is an element of the various offenses with which he is charged. Thus, in no event could petitioner have avoided the imposition of discipline in this proceeding. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to neither an abatement of the disciplinary proceeding nor a section 6007, subdivision (b) probable cause investigation.