Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyhearingtestimonywillcompliancemitigating circumstancescredibility
hearing

Related Cases

In re Estate of Denner, Not Reported in A.2d, 2006 WL 510530
View Case »
Goodwin v. Coddington, 8 E.H. Smith 283, 154 N.Y. 283, 48 N.E. 729
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Opatz, 554 N.W.2d 813
View Case »
Matter of Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 127 A.D.2d 973, 513 N.Y.S.2d 311
View Case »
Reade, Estate of v. C. I. R., 511 F.2d 1395 (Table)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In the Matter of Morrissey, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2013 WL 176301

Facts

Michael Thomas Morrissey, an attorney with a long history of disciplinary actions, was found guilty of three counts of misconduct in his fifth disciplinary proceeding. The charges stemmed from his failure to comply with a court order during a previous disciplinary case, his false declaration under penalty of perjury regarding compliance, and his lack of cooperation with a State Bar investigation. Despite claiming he was unaware of the proceedings due to his wife's concealment of communications, the hearing judge found his testimony lacked credibility and recommended disbarment due to the absence of mitigating factors.

Morrissey was admitted to practice law in California in December 1974, and has four prior records of discipline.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Morrissey failed to comply with a court order, made false statements under penalty of perjury, and whether he cooperated with the State Bar's investigation.

Morrissey seeks review, contending that the hearing judge made procedural and evidentiary errors that require reversal.

Rule

The court applied the standards for attorney discipline, particularly focusing on the severity of the misconduct and the absence of mitigating circumstances, as outlined in the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar.

Finding no mitigation and significant aggravation, the hearing judge recommended that Morrissey be disbarred.

Analysis

The court found that Morrissey willfully disobeyed the July 13, 2010 order by failing to notify his clients and the court of his suspension. His attempts to comply were deemed inadequate, and his false declaration under penalty of perjury further demonstrated a lack of integrity. The court emphasized that Morrissey's extensive history of prior discipline and the nature of his current misconduct warranted disbarment under the applicable standards.

We find that Morrissey is culpable of four counts of misconduct, including failing to perform competently, for which he established no factors in mitigation.

Conclusion

The court concluded that disbarment was necessary to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession, given Morrissey's repeated failures to meet his professional obligations.

We see no reason to depart from the standard, and find that in order to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession, Morrissey should be disbarred.

Who won?

The State Bar prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the recommendation for disbarment based on Morrissey's extensive history of misconduct and lack of mitigating factors.

Although the State Bar did not seek review, it supports the hearing judge's decision and contends that Morrissey is additionally culpable of failing to competently perform legal services.

You must be