WHY THE DISPARITY?

                If you read the State Bar discipline reports with any regularity, you might notice that there is often disparate discipline meted out to attorneys who have engaged in similar conduct.  Or you may have the impression that one attorney “got off easy” for serious misconduct, while another attorney “had the book thrown at him” for much less egregious wrongdoing.  Why, you might think, is there such a disparity in treatment?

                Theoretically, discipline should be handed out in a similar fashion to those attorneys found culpable of similar misconduct. In evaluating appropriate discipline, both the parties and the State Bar Court should be guided by the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (found at Title IV of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California), as well as prior, relevant legal precedent.  However, attorney discipline cases in the State Bar Court are litigation matters, and like other litigation matters, oftentimes more subjective factors may be at play, such as the personalities of the actors involved (e.g., is the prosecutor even-handed and reasonable, or does he or she view every attorney who faces disciplinary charges as pond scum?), or whether the attorney might be more interested in a quick and cost effective resolution (by way of stipulation) rather than endure the emotional, personal and financial cost of a full-scale trial.

                Since attorney discipline law is a highly specialized area of practice filled with potential minefields for the uninitiated, it is also generally true that attorneys who are represented by those who regularly practice in the field fare better than those who choose either to represent themselves or retain counsel unfamiliar with disciplinary practice and procedure.