Lubetzky?v.?State?Bar?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?308?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?268;?815?P.2d?341
[No.?S013552.?Aug?30,?1991.]RICHARD?H.?LUBETZKY,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?STATE?BAR?OF?CALIFORNIA,?Respondent.
(Opinion?by?The?Court.)
COUNSEL
Greines,?Martin,?Stein?&?Richland?and?Kent?L.?Richland?for?Petitioner.
Diane?C.?Yu,?Starr?Babcock,?Marie?M.?Moffat?and?Robert?P.?Heyman?for?Respondent.
OPINION
THE?COURT.
Petitioner?was?denied?admission?to?practice?law?after?a?hearing?panel?of?the?State?Bar?determined?that?he?had?”not?proven?that?he?is?possessed?of?good?moral?character”?within?the?meaning?of?rule?X?of?the?Rules?Regulating?Admission?to?Practice?Law?in?California.?The?review?department?affirmed?that?ruling?without?dissent,?two?members?abstaining.?[54?Cal.3d?312]?Our?review?of?the?entire?record?persuades?us?that?the?evidence?does?not?support?the?findings?of?the?hearing?panel?as?to?petitioner’s?moral?character.?We?therefore?decline?to?accord?those?findings?any?weight.?Instead,?we?conclude?in?light?of?our?own?independent?evaluation?of?the?evidence?that?petitioner?presented?a?strong?prima?facie?case?that?he?is?of?sufficiently?good?moral?character?to?be?admitted?to?practice?law.?Because?we?are?persuaded?that?the?State?Bar’s?evidence?failed?to?rebut?that?prima?facie?case,?we?find?that?petitioner?has?sustained?his?burden?of?proof?on?the?issue?of?moral?character?and?direct?that?he?be?certified?as?qualified?for?admission?to?practice?law.
- Introduction
The?charges?levelled?against?petitioner?by?the?State?Bar?centered?on?two?related?matters:?(1)?an?alleged?misuse?of?the?judicial?process?by?filing?civil?suits?against?former?friends?for?the?purpose?of?harassing?them,?and?(2)?the?accusation?that?petitioner?was?responsible?for?the?mystifying?appearance?of?over?one?hundred?sexually?obscene?postcards?and?letters?anonymously?mailed?to?Robert?Friedman,?a?former?friend?of?petitioner?and?his?chief?accuser?at?the?hearing,?and?to?Friedman’s?mother,?the?Friedmans’?family?[54?Cal.3d?313]?physicians,?and?an?art?gallery?where?Robert?Friedman?falsely?claimed?to?be?employed.
Except?for?a?lawsuit?filed?by?petitioner?in?1975?against?one?Arguimbau,?a?college?classmate?and?friend?with?whom?he?had?a?falling?out,?the?bulk?of?the?litigation?filed?by?petitioner?arose?out?of?his?short-lived?friendship?with?Friedman,?a?relationship?that?began?in?1982?when?Friedman?began?sharing?an?apartment?with?Robin?Spivack,?a?friend?and?former?law?school?classmate?of?petitioner.?The?rise?and?fall?of?the?friendship?was?punctuated?by?the?appearance?of?the?anonymous?mail-beginning?with?a?mildly?obscene?note?to?Robin?Spivack?following?her?eviction?of?Friedman?from?the?apartment?in?the?wake?of?a?series?of?bizarre?acts-and?gradually?became?a?torrent?of?sexually?explicit?postcards,?often?cobbled?together?from?fragments?of?newspaper?and?typescript?or?handwriting.?As?a?kind?of?counterpoint?to?the?obscene?mail,?some?of?the?participants?in?the?affair?began?to?receive?annoying?hang-up?telephone?calls-sometimes?as?many?as?20?a?day-originating?roughly?coincidently?with?the?obscene?mail.?Robin?Spivack,?petitioner,?and?Robert?Friedman?all?reported?being?telephonically?harassed.
Apart?from?one?item,?little?if?any?of?the?evidence?offered?by?the?State?Bar?inculpated?petitioner?as?the?source?of?the?obscene?mail.?But?that?one?item?was?troubling-the?tip?of?a?fingerprint?discovered?on?the?obverse?side?of?a?piece?of?”scotch”?tape?used?to?bind?a?fragment?of?newspaper?to?the?face?of?one?of?the?obscene?postcards,?a?print?identified?as?and?conceded?to?be?petitioner’s.?Other?than?this?item,?much?of?the?evidence?presented?at?the?hearing?pointed?to?someone?else?as?the?figure?behind?the?obscene?mail-pointed,?in?fact,?to?the?principal?recipient,?Robert?Friedman?himself.?Moreover,?the?implications?of?the?fingerprint?were?undercut?by?a?wealth?of?evidence?of?bizarre?conduct?by?Friedman,?conduct?similar?to?that?with?which?petitioner?was?charged;?by?the?admission?in?a?secretly?recorded?telephone?conversation?that?Friedman?was?responsible?for?the?hang-up?calls;?and?by?petitioner’s?innocent?explanation?of?the?fingerprint,?supported?by?expert?testimony?and?demonstrative?evidence.?Finally,?petitioner’s?authorship?of?the?postcards?was?not?easily?reconciled?with?the?considerable?evidence?of?his?good?character-evidence?that?he?is?conscientious,?moderate?in?expression,?and?seemingly?devoted?to?the?welfare?of?others.
Our?independent?review?of?this?record?convinces?us?that?the?State?Bar’s?rebuttal?evidence?to?petitioner’s?prima?facie?case?is?insufficient?to?sustain?the?conclusion?of?the?hearing?panel?that?he?lacks?good?moral?character.
- The?Evidence
Petitioner’s?evidence?at?the?moral?character?hearing?established?that?he?graduated?cum?laude?from?the?University?of?California?at?Los?Angeles?[54?Cal.3d?314]?(UCLA)?in?1974.?While?an?undergraduate,?petitioner?was?active?in?consumer?affairs;?he?founded?and?served?as?the?first?director?of?the?university’s?Consumer?Protection?Project,?co-authored?a?consumer?rights?handbook?published?by?the?university,?and?taught?a?consumer?rights?course.?He?received?several?awards?and?citations?for?his?work?in?this?area.?Following?graduation,?petitioner?worked?full?time?in?a?law?firm?as?a?paralegal?and?researcher?while?attending?night?law?school?classes?from?1975?to?1978.?[2]?(See?fn.?2.)?In?1979,?he?began?attending?law?school?full?time,?graduating?in?1980.fn.?2In?1985,?petitioner?joined?a?Southern-California-based?consumer?group?known?as?CALJUSTICE?(an?acronym?for?Consumer?Advocates?for?Legal?Justice),?an?organization?seeking?reform?of?the?attorney?disciplinary?process,?including?its?removal?from?the?hands?of?the?State?Bar.?According?to?evidence?in?the?record,?petitioner?has?been?a?visible?advocate?for?change?in?the?attorney?disciplinary?system,?having?served?as?board?chair?and?president?of?CALJUSTICE?since?1986?and?having?appeared?on?behalf?of?that?organization?before?several?state?legislative?committees,?the?State?Bar?Board?of?Governors,?and?other?forums?in?support?of?attorney?disciplinary?reform.?Petitioner?has?contributed?these?efforts?on?behalf?of?the?organization?on?an?uncompensated,?volunteer?basis.
In?support?of?his?good?character,?petitioner?presented?testimony,?declarations,?and?letters?of?support?from?several?persons-three?attorneys,?a?state?senator,?colleagues?in?the?consumer?protection?movement,?former?teachers?and?college?administrators,?schoolmates?and?neighbors-attesting?to?his?good?moral?character.?All?offered?unqualified?praise?of?petitioner,?including?his?honesty,?integrity,?reliability?and?altruistic?nature.?These?included?the?former?president?and?cofounder?of?CALJUSTICE?(who?described?petitioner?as?”the?finest?human?being?I?ever?met”?and?”beyond?reproach”);?an?attorney?active?in?discipline?reform?who?formerly?served?on?the?State?Bar’s?Public?Protection?Committee?(who?stated,?”If?I?wanted?to?see?somebody?be?an?attorney,?it?would?be?[petitioner]?because?of?his?integrity”);?an?attorney?who?had?represented?petitioner?in?past?litigation?(who?described?petitioner?as?”honest?to?the?spirit,?not?only?the?letter,?of?what?he?says”?and?who?”wish[ed]?there?were?more?attorneys?out?there?with?[petitioner’s]?moral?character”);?another?attorney?for?whom?petitioner?had?worked?as?a?paralegal?and?researcher?(who?thought?petitioner?”would?make?an?excellent?attorney”);?and?[54?Cal.3d?315]?other?law?graduates?and?friends?of?petitioner?who?testified?along?similar?lines.?[3]?(See?fn.?3.)?In?short,?petitioner?met?his?threshold?burden?of?demonstrating?prima?facie?his?good?moral?character.fn.?3
The?State?Bar’s?case-in-rebuttal?proceeded?along?three?lines,?all?of?which-together?with?a?fourth-were?adopted?and?relied?upon?by?the?hearing?panel.?Before?taking?up?the?chief?issue-the?central?puzzle?of?the?obscene?mail-we?consider?the?three?other?grounds?relied?on?by?the?hearing?panel.fn.?4?The?panel?determined?that:?(1)?litigation?commenced?by?petitioner?in?the?past?indicated,?in?its?words,?”a?pattern?of?harassment?on?the?part?of?petitioner?in?using?the?courts?and?the?judicial?process?for?personal?reasons”;?(2)?petitioner?omitted?from?his?bar?examination?application?certain?litigation?in?which?he?had?participated?until?notified?of?the?omission?by?State?Bar?officials;?and?(3)?petitioner?showed?a?”lack?of?respect?for?the?law?and?for?the?legal?canons?of?ethics”?by?tape-recording?two?telephone?conversations?with?Robert?Friedman?without?Friedman’s?knowledge?or?consent.?As?we?shall?see,?all?three?grounds?are?questionable;?none?standing?alone?would?suffice?to?establish?petitioner’s?bad?moral?character;?and?together?they?fail?to?rebut?petitioner’s?prima?facie?case?of?good?moral?character.
A.
The?”pattern”?of?litigation?harassment.?In?its?decision,?the?hearing?panel?noted?that?a?defamation?action?filed?by?petitioner?against?Robert?Friedman?and?others?was?dismissed?by?the?trial?court?on?privilege?grounds,?a?result?upheld?by?the?Court?of?Appeal.fn.?5?The?panel?then?recounted?petitioner’s?small?[54?Cal.3d?316]?claims?proceeding?against?one?of?Friedman’s?codefendants?in?the?defamation?action,?in?which?petitioner?had?sought?damages?and?a?statutory?fine?following?the?codefendant’s?failure?to?attend?a?noticed?deposition-including?petitioner’s?subsequent?(and?unsuccessful)?petition?to?the?superior?court?seeking?review?of?the?adverse?small?claims?ruling.fn.?6
[4]?To?the?hearing?panel,?petitioner’s?conduct?in?these?two?matters?bore?similarities?to?the?1975?defamation?action?against?his?former?friend,?Arguimbau.?And?despite?recognition?of?the?fact?that?petitioner?was?represented?by?counsel?in?all?but?the?small?claims?proceeding?and?that?13?years?had?passed?since?the?first?suit?was?instituted,?it?”seemed”?to?the?panel?that?these?lawsuits?”showed?a?pattern?of?harassment?on?the?part?of?[petitioner]?in?using?the?Courts?and?the?judicial?process?for?personal?reasons.”?The?panel?failed?altogether,?however,?to?identify?the?similarities?between?the?1975?and?the?1983?lawsuits?on?which?it?relied.?In?addition,?its?conclusion?on?this?point?suffers?from?a?lamentable?absence?of?precision.?The?panel?did?not?specifically?find?a?pattern?of?harassment?in?petitioner’s?use?of?the?courts-it?only?concluded?that?one?”seemed”?to?exist.?Nor?did?it?purport?to?find?that?any?of?the?actions?lacked?merit?or?were?brought?for?an?improper?purpose.In?analogous?areas,?we?have?required?a?heightened?showing?of?misconduct?by?a?litigant?or?attorney?as?a?condition?of?penalizing?resort?to?the?judicial?process.?In?In?re?Marriage?of?Flaherty?(1982)?31?Cal.3d?637?[183?Cal.Rptr.?508,?646?P.2d?179],?we?formulated?a?strict?standard?for?imposing?sanctions?for?prosecuting?frivolous?appeals-defined?to?include?those?taken?to?harass?an?opponent-noting?that?sanctions?”should?be?used?most?sparingly?to?deter?only?the?most?egregious?conduct.”?(Id.?at?p.?651.)?In?Sheldon?Appel?Co.?v.?Albert?&?Oliker?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?863[254?Cal.Rptr.?336,?765?P.2d?498],?we?adopted?a?modified?Flaherty?standard-“whether?any?reasonable?attorney?would?have?thought?the?claim?tenable”-as?the?standard?under?which?the?probable?cause?element?of?malicious?prosecution?actions?is?to?be?tested.?As?in?Flaherty,?we?were?motivated?in?part?by?a?concern?to?avoid?”a?serious?chilling?effect?on?the?assertion?of?litigants’?rights?[of?access].”?(Id.?at?p.?885,?quoting?Flaherty,?supra,?31?Cal.3d?at?p.?650.)?[54?Cal.3d?317]
Given?these?expressed?concerns,?we?are?reluctant?to?credit?so?tentative?a?finding?of?moral?turpitude?based?on?undisclosed?grounds?as?that?reached?by?the?hearing?panel?in?this?case.?Especially?where?important?policies?favoring?unfettered?access?to?the?courts?are?implicated,?a?more?carefully?articulated?assessment?of?the?evidence,?leading?to?precisely?formulated?findings,?is?demanded.?We?therefore?decline?to?adopt?the?findings?of?the?hearing?panel?with?respect?to?this?charge?against?petitioner.
[5]?Turning?to?the?record?itself?and?evaluating?the?evidence?independently,?we?conclude?that?it?falls?short?of?sustaining?a?determination?that?petitioner’s?resort?to?the?courts?discloses?a?pattern?of?groundless?litigation?designed?to?harass?others.?At?the?outset,?we?are?unpersuaded?that?the?Arguimbau?suit?shares?sufficient?similarities?with?the?Friedman?litigation?to?constitute?a?”pattern.”?True,?both?were?defamation?actions?brought?against?former?friends?of?petitioner?after?a?falling?out.?Beyond?that,?however,?the?similarities?end.More?importantly,?we?find?little?in?the?record?to?warrant?a?conclusion?that?any?of?the?lawsuits?on?which?the?hearing?panel?relied?qualify?as?frivolous.?As?noted,?in?all?of?these?proceedings?except?the?small?claims?action,?petitioner?was?represented?by?counsel.?Each?of?the?lawyers?who?represented?petitioner?in?the?Arguimbau?and?Friedman?lawsuits?appeared?at?the?hearing?and?testified?that?in?counsel’s?opinion?the?suit?had?merit;?petitioner?obtained?a?favorable?settlement?in?the?Arguimbau?matter,?the?small?claims?action?was?authorized?by?statute,?and?the?authority?upon?which?petitioner’s?defamation?complaint?against?the?Friedmans?was?dismissed?was?subsequently?questioned?by?another?division?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.fn.?7
Although?the?lawsuits?do?petitioner?no?particular?credit,?neither?do?they?reveal?anything?more?than?a?trait?for?combativeness?that?many?clients?expect?in?lawyers.?It?is?true?that?the?Friedman?litigation?appears?to?have?been?aggressively?pursued?by?petitioner,?but?the?case?was?aggressively?fought?by?the?attorney?for?the?Friedmans-as?petitioner’s?former?litigation?attorney?[54?Cal.3d?318]?testified.?The?record,?moreover,?suggests?that?petitioner?believed?his?standing?as?a?consumer?advocate?and?would-be?attorney?might?be?jeopardized?if?the?Friedmans’?allegations?were?permitted?to?go?unchallenged.?In?short,?the?record?does?not?disclose?any?basis?upon?which?we?can?reasonably?conclude?that?the?lawsuits?were?improper,?especially?when?evaluated?in?light?of?the?maxim?that?all?reasonable?doubts?in?admission?proceedings?are?to?be?resolved?in?favor?of?the?applicant.fn.?8
We?have?previously?found?an?applicant’s?participation?in?five?lawsuits?to?be?so?”relatively?insignificant”?as?to?merit?no?more?than?a?footnote.?(Hall?v.?Committee?of?Bar?Examiners,?supra,?25?Cal.3d?730,?733,?fn.?2.)?Standing?alone,?these?incidents?are?insufficient?to?sustain?a?finding?of?bad?moral?character.?(Cf.?Hallinan,?supra,?65?Cal.2d?at?p.?464?et?seq.?[repeated?fistfights?insufficient?to?support?exclusion].)
B.
Omissions?in?bar?examination?applications.?Under?this?heading,?the?hearing?panel?found?that?petitioner?failed?to?list?on?his?bar?examination?applications?the?Friedman?lawsuits?and?the?action?against?the?Regents?until?these?omissions?were?brought?to?his?attention?by?the?State?Bar.?Petitioner’s?explanation?was?that?he?had?submitted?a?complete?list?of?litigation?in?his?original?”long?form”?application?in?1980,?the?first?time?he?took?the?bar?examination;?that?he?had?subsequently?filed?”short?form”?applications?each?time?he?took?the?bar?examination;?that?he?had?failed?to?disclose?the?Friedman?litigation?under?the?mistaken?belief?that?he?had?included?it?in?one?of?the?previous?short?form?applications?he?submitted?(he?filed?12?such?forms?over?the?years);?and?that?he?had?not?listed?the?Regents?suit?after?being?advised?by?a?State?Bar?official?that?he?need?not?include?a?matter?ordered?sealed?by?the?court.?It?is?undisputed?that?on?passing?the?bar?examination?and?being?asked?by?the?State?Bar?to?submit?an?updated?long-form?application,?petitioner?did?so?in?1988,?disclosing?all?of?the?litigation?in?which?he?had?been?involved,?including?the?Regents?matter,?and?that?this?disclosure?occurred?before?petitioner?was?notified?that?the?State?Bar?intended?to?institute?moral?character?proceedings?against?him.
The?hearing?panel?found?petitioner’s?explanation?that?he?had?overlooked?the?Friedman?litigation?unconvincing?”because?[petitioner]?appeared?to?be?[54?Cal.3d?319]?otherwise?meticulous?in?dealing?with?details.”?We?are?not?informed?by?its?decision,?however,?what?the?panel?made?of?these?omissions-it?made?no?finding?that?they?constituted?acts?of?moral?turpitude.?Presumably?the?panel?inferred?that?petitioner’s?failure?to?disclose?the?lawsuits?until?asked?by?the?State?Bar?to?submit?an?updated?long-?form?application?was?accompanied?by?an?intention?to?conceal?the?fact?of?the?litigation?from?the?State?Bar.
The?evidence,?however,?undermines?such?an?inference.?It?discloses?correspondence?in?1986?between?petitioner,?the?State?Bar,?and?the?Friedmans’?attorney?in?which?petitioner?noted?the?restraining?order?he?had?obtained?against?Robert?Friedman?and?his?subsequent?defamation?action?against?the?Friedman?family.?The?record?includes?a?reply?from?the?State?Bar’s?executive?director?inviting?petitioner?to?provide?any?additional?information?regarding?the?Friedman?litigation?and?the?underlying?controversy?when?he?had?passed?the?bar?examination.?Thus,?in?1986?petitioner?certainly?knew?that?the?State?Bar?was?aware?of?the?Friedman?litigation?since?he?had?discussed?it?with?them?in?correspondence.?He?would?thus?have?had?no?discernible?reason?to?fail?to?disclose?the?litigation?in?his?application?in?the?hope?of?concealing?it?from?the?State?Bar.
[6]?We?have?distinguished?between?affirmative?misstatements?intended?to?place?an?applicant?at?an?advantage?and?the?unintentional?nondisclosure?of?information?which,?under?the?circumstances,?is?not?morally?significant.?(Hallinan,?supra,?65?Cal.2d?at?p.?473?[failure?to?disclose?arrests?de?minimus?in?light?of?disclosure?of?several?other?arrests];?Greene?v.?Committee?of?Bar?Examiners,?supra,?4?Cal.3d?189,?194?[unintentional?failure?to?disclose?prior?bar?examination?applications?and?prior?law?school?attendance?not?grounds?for?exclusion].)?Given?the?circumstances?of?record,?notably?the?absence?of?any?apparent?motive?on?the?part?of?petitioner?to?lie?about?the?matter,?the?failure?to?include?the?litigation?appears?to?us?to?qualify?as?the?sort?of?”unintentional?nondisclosure?of?a?relatively?unimportant?matter”?which?does?not?justify?exclusion?from?the?bar.?(Greene,?supra,?at?p.?194.)C.
Unconsented?taping?of?telephone?conversations.?As?part?of?an?effort?to?impeach?Robert?Friedman’s?testimony,?petitioner’s?counsel?offered?into?evidence?a?cassette?recording?of?two?telephone?conversations?between?petitioner?and?Friedman?during?which?they?discussed?the?obscene?mail,?the?hang-up?calls,?and?related?matters.?These?conversations?were?tape-recorded?by?petitioner?without?Friedman’s?knowledge.?Their?contents?are?unquestionably?probative?on?the?issue?of?Friedman’s?role?in?the?postcard?affair-they?inculpate?Robert?Friedman?as?the?source?of?the?hang-up?calls?and?establish?[54?Cal.3d?320]?that?he?invented?the?names?of?two?fictitious?Los?Angeles?art?galleries?that?he?said?had?received?obscene?postcards.fn.?9
According?to?petitioner,?Friedman?had?admitted?to?him?that?he?(Friedman)?was?responsible?for?the?hang-up?calls,?but?had?threatened?to?blame?petitioner?for?them?if?denounced.?Petitioner?further?testified?that?before?deciding?to?make?the?recordings,?he?researched?the?legal?aspects?of?the?unconsented?recording?of?telephone?calls,?checked?with?a?police?detective?investigating?the?Friedman?matter?and?a?county?prosecutor?(both?of?whom,?he?testified,?advised?him?of?its?legality?under?certain?circumstances),?and?concluded?that?a?recording?of?a?telephone?conversation?with?Friedman?without?his?knowledge,?if?undertaken?with?certain?safeguards,?would?not?be?unlawful?under?the?circumstances.
[7]?Rather?than?assess?the?substantive?evidential?value?of?the?content?of?the?cassette?recordings?in?assisting?it?in?resolving?the?pivotal?issue?in?the?case,?the?hearing?panel?instead?seized?on?the?fact?that?the?tape?recordings?were?made?without?Friedman’s?knowledge?as?an?additional?basis?on?which?to?fault?petitioner’s?character.fn.?10?It?ruled?that?the?making?of?the?cassette?revealed?another?character?defect-a?”lack?of?respect?for?the?law”-and?furnished?an?additional?ground?on?which?to?deny?petitioner?admission.Of?all?the?evidentiary?uses?to?which?the?tape?recordings?and?their?contents?might?have?been?put,?the?hearing?panel’s?seems?the?most?dubious.fn.?11?Accepting?[54?Cal.3d?321]?as?reasonable?petitioner’s?uncontradicted?testimony?that?he?believed?that?Friedman?was?himself?the?source?of?the?hang-up?calls,?the?taping?episode?falls?within?an?exception?to?the?general?statutory?criminalization?of?unconsented?telephone?recordings.?Although?Penal?Code?section?632?makes?the?recording?of?a?confidential?telephone?conversation?without?the?consent?of?all?parties?a?criminal?offense,?Penal?Code?section?633.5?exempts?from?the?sweep?of?the?statute?an?undisclosed?recording?by?one?of?the?parties?of?a?conversation?”reasonably?believed?to?relate?to?the?commission?by?another?party?[to?the?conversation]?of?[certain?enumerated?crimes]?…?or?a?violation?of?section?653m.”?Penal?Code?former?section?653m,?subdivision?(b),?in?turn,?made?it?a?misdemeanor?to?telephone?anyone?”with?intent?to?annoy?…?and?without?disclosing?[the?caller’s]?identity?…?whether?or?not?conversation?ensues?….”
Several?decisions?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?have?examined?the?relationship?between?Penal?Code?sections?632?and?633.5.?All?have?concluded-correctly-that?the?latter?exempts?from?the?former?an?unconsented?recording?made?with?the?requisite?reasonable?belief?although?the?recording?fails?to?capture?the?anticipated?evidence?(People?v.?Parra?(1985)?165?Cal.App.3d?874,?880-881?[212?Cal.Rptr.?53])?or?the?initial?purpose?of?the?recording?is?self-?protection?rather?than?to?gather?evidence?for?use?in?a?criminal?prosecution?(People?v.?Ayers?(1975)?51?Cal.App.3d?370,?377?[124?Cal.Rptr.?283]).?(See?also?People?v.?Montgomery?(1976)?61?Cal.App.3d?718,?731?[132?Cal.Rptr.?558];?People?v.?Strohl?(1976)?57?Cal.App.3d?347?[129?Cal.Rptr.?224].)?In?light?of?our?conclusion?that?the?tape?recordings?were?made?by?petitioner?under?the?reasonable?belief?that?the?conversations?with?Friedman?would?relate?to?hang-up?calls,?the?evidence?fails?to?support?a?finding?of?moral?turpitude?with?respect?to?these?incidents.fn.?12?[54?Cal.3d?322] D.
[8]?The?obscene?mail.?This?brings?us?to?what,?by?any?account?of?the?matter,?is?the?hinge?of?the?case:?the?charge?that?petitioner?authored?and?mailed?literally?scores?of?obscene?postcards?to?Robert?Friedman?and?others.?As?noted,?petitioner’s?defense?to?this?charge?was?that?Friedman,?the?State?Bar’s?chief?witness,?was?himself?the?offender?and?had?framed?petitioner,?acting?out?of?a?combination?of?vindictiveness?and?a?need?for?attention.On?a?cold?record,?Friedman?is?not?a?convincing?witness.?The?hearing?panel?itself?conceded?that?his?testimony?was?substantially?”impeached?and?discredited.”?The?State?Bar?admitted?as?much?in?its?brief?before?the?review?department.?Witness?after?witness?testified?to?Friedman’s?bizarre?behavior,?and?much?of?the?evidence?pointed?to?him?as?the?source?of?the?hang-up?calls,?including?his?own?admission?in?one?of?the?recorded?telephone?conversations.?Other?testimony?suggested?that?his?modus?operandi?included?the?use?of?anonymous?postcards?and?obscene?telephone?messages;?one?witness?testified?convincingly?to?circumstances?suggesting?that?Friedman?had?contrived?to?frame?her?by?making?it?appear?(falsely)?that?she?was?responsible?for?painting?obscene?graffiti?on?the?wall?of?a?building?in?which?she?and?Friedman?had?apartments.
Yet?even?in?the?face?of?the?admission?by?Friedman?that?he?was?the?source?of?the?hang-up?calls,?other?evidence?that?he?had?lied?under?oath,?and?the?hearing?panel’s?own?conclusion?that?his?credibility?had?been?destroyed,?the?panel?found?that?Friedman?”did?not?appear?capable?of?composing?[an]?obscene?post?card,”?and?found?it?incredible?that?he?could?have?mailed?obscene?material?to?his?mother.fn.?13
Absent?the?evidence?of?petitioner’s?fingerprint,?it?is?unlikely?that?the?hearing?panel?would?have?concluded?that?the?State?Bar’s?case-in-rebuttal?on?the?postcard?charge?had?been?made?out;?indeed,?it?is?unlikely?that?moral?character?proceedings?would?have?been?brought?against?petitioner?at?all.?It?is?easy-and?tempting?in?the?face?of?a?record?as?dauntingly?ambiguous?as?this?one-to?make?too?much?of?the?fingerprint?evidence,?to?make?it,?in?the?words?[54?Cal.3d?323]?of?the?State?Bar,?the?”smoking?gun”?inculpating?petitioner?irrefutably.fn.?14?The?significance?of?this?almost?theatrical?piece?of?physical?evidence,?however,?must?be?evaluated?in?the?context?of?the?entire?case.
Petitioner’s?explanation?of?the?appearance?of?his?fingerprint?on?one?of?the?cards?was,?again,?that?Friedman?had?framed?him,?either?by?showing?him?the?postcard?before?it?was?mailed,?by?arranging?to?obtain?a?piece?of?tape?from?petitioner?bearing?his?fingerprint,?or?by?retrieving?the?card?from?the?addressee?(a?Los?Angeles?art?gallery?with?which?Friedman?had?a?family?connection)?and?then?showing?it?to?petitioner.?Petitioner?offered?expert?testimony?to?make?this?account?plausible,?including?the?results?of?a?microscopic?examination?of?the?postcard?by?a?questioned?documents?analyst.?The?expert?testified?that?his?examination?revealed?the?presence?of?debris?beneath?the?tape,?damage?to?one?of?the?taped?corners?of?the?card,?newsprint?on?the?tape?mucilage,?and?a?”double”?print?image-all?features?consistent?with?the?conclusion?that?the?tape?had?at?some?time?been?lifted.fn.?15
In?addition,?petitioner?offered?demonstrative?evidence?to?support?his?theory.?This?consisted?of?expert?testimony?and?the?physical?results?of?an?experimental?replication?of?the?process?by?which,?in?examining?the?postcard,?tape,?and?newsprint,?the?telltale?print?might?have?been?deposited.?The?expert’s?testimony?and?the?demonstrative?evidence?at?least?show?the?plausibility?of?petitioner’s?theory.?That?is,?the?evidence?demonstrates?that?the?postcard?could?have?been?examined?in?the?manner?described?by?petitioner,?and?that?such?an?examination?could?have?left?a?fingerprint?like?the?one?on?the?actual?postcard?without?leaving?evidence?of?tampering?visible?to?the?unaided?eye.fn.?16
The?hearing?panel,?however,?assessed?neither?the?probative?value?of?the?expert’s?findings?of?physical?evidence?of?tampering?nor?the?effect?of?the?experimental?results?on?the?question?whether?petitioner?sent?the?postcards.?[54?Cal.3d?324]?Instead,?it?rejected?petitioner’s?account?on?the?ground?that,?had?Friedman?shown?him?the?card?before?mailing?it,?petitioner?would?have?noticed?that?it?bore?no?postmark.fn.?17?Given?the?state?of?the?record,?however,?this?manner?of?assessing?the?evidence?was?short?of?satisfactory.
It?is?true?that?someone?scrutinizing?a?postal?item?for?clues?to?its?origin?might?be?expected?to?notice?the?absence?of?a?cancellation?mark.?But?it?is?also?not?uncommon?to?receive?items?in?the?mail?bearing?neither?a?cancellation?nor?other?evidence?of?mailing.?Although?probative?on?the?issue?of?who?was?responsible?for?the?mailings,?the?fact?that?petitioner?did?not?notice?the?absence?of?a?postal?cancellationfn.?18?is?not,?as?the?hearing?panel?seems?to?have?reasoned,?conclusive?on?the?question.?We?are?not?convinced?that?the?failure?to?observe?that?the?postcard?bore?no?cancellation?ipso?facto?discredited?petitioner’s?explanation?of?the?fingerprint,?and?led?inexorably?to?the?conclusion?that?petitioner?was?responsible?for?the?mailings.?At?the?least,?the?hearing?panel?should?have?provided?some?account?of?the?substantial?evidence?pointing?to?the?opposite?conclusion.
Apart?from?the?fingerprint,?there?is?virtually?no?evidence?to?inculpate?petitioner?as?the?author?of?the?obscene?mail;?indeed,?as?noted,?there?is?much?evidence?in?the?record?pointing?to?someone?else.?It?is?not,?of?course,?the?province?of?the?fact?finder?in?this?proceeding?to?determine?who?was?responsible?vel?non?for?the?obscene?mail;?it?is?enough?that?our?independent?review?of?the?entire?record?leaves?us?with?reservations?short?of?being?persuaded?that?petitioner?was?responsible?for?the?obscene?mail.?That?charge?not?being?sustained?by?the?evidence,?and?the?remaining?allegations?against?petitioner?either?being?likewise?unsustained?or,?where?sustained,?not?being?evidence?of?bad?moral?character,?we?conclude?that?the?State?Bar’s?case-?in-rebuttal?failed?to?rebut?petitioner’s?prima?facie?case?of?good?moral?character.
III.?Conclusion
It?is?ordered?that?the?Committee?of?Bar?Examiners?certify?petitioner?Richard?H.?Lubetzky?to?this?court?as?a?person?qualified?to?be?admitted?to?practice?law.?[54?Cal.3d?325]
Our?order?is?effective?upon?finality?of?this?decision?in?this?court.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?953(a).)
FN?1.?Rule?X,?section?1(a),?Rules?Regulating?Admission?to?Practice?Law?in?California.
FN?2.?Between?1980?and?1987,?petitioner?took?the?California?Bar?Examination?13?times?before?passing?in?June?1987.?In?other?words,?except?for?1985,?applicant?took?the?bar?examination?every?time?it?was?offered?for?six?years.?This?may?be?a?record,?but?of?course?it?is?not?fatal?or?even?relevant?to?the?decision?whether?petitioner?should?be?denied?admission?to?practice?on?moral?character?grounds.?(Cf.?Hightower?v.?State?Bar,?supra,?34?Cal.3d?at?p.?153?[applicant?who?had?taken?bar?seven?times?ordered?admitted?over?claims?of?misconduct].)
FN?3.?Our?decisions?in?admission?cases?accord?”significant?weight”?in?making?a?prima?facie?case?to?testimonials?from?attorneys?on?an?applicant’s?behalf.?(Kwasnik?v.?State?Bar,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1068;?see?also?Pacheco?v.?State?Bar?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?1041,?1053?[239?Cal.Rptr.?897,?741?P.2d?1138];?Greene?v.?Committee?of?Bar?Examiners?(1971)?4?Cal.3d?189,?192?[93?Cal.Rptr.?24,?480?P.2d?976];?Bernstein?v.?Committee?of?Bar?Examiners,?supra,?69?Cal.2d?at?p.?96;?Hallinan,?supra,?65?Cal.2d?at?p.?453.)
FN?4.?The?hearing?panel?in?this?case?consisted?of?two?members,?a?volunteer?attorney?and?a?public?(nonattorney)?panelist.?A?third?panelist-the?principal?referee-resigned?before?the?hearings?were?completed?and?did?not?participate?in?the?decision.
FN?5.?The?bulk?of?the?litigation?in?which?petitioner?had?participated?consisted?of?two?core?suits?and?satellite?proceedings.?In?1975,?petitioner?filed?a?defamation?action?against?Arguimbau.?The?case?was?settled,?Arguimbau?agreeing?to?pay?a?small?sum?as?part?of?the?settlement?agreement?and?executing?a?promissory?note;?petitioner?later?successfully?filed?suit?to?enforce?the?note.?The?so-called?Friedman?litigation?began?in?1983?and?eventually?encompassed?three?suits-an?action?to?restrain?Robert?Friedman?from?physically?interfering?with?petitioner;?a?second?suit?against?Friedman,?his?parents?and?others?for?defamation?and?related?claims?arising?out?of?the?postcard?incidents?and?allegations?that?petitioner?was?responsible?for?the?mailings;?and?an?ancillary?small?claims?proceeding?against?a?friend?of?Friedman?for?damages?and?a?statutory?fine?following?her?failure?to?attend?a?deposition?in?the?second?Friedman?action.?In?addition,?petitioner?had?filed?an?action?against?the?University?of?California?(in?which?the?Regents?were?the?nominal?defendants)?seeking?to?have?corrected?certain?of?his?records?while?a?student?at?UCLA.?The?record?in?that?proceeding?was?ordered?sealed?by?the?superior?court.
In?finding?a?pattern?of?harassment,?the?hearing?panel?relied?only?on?the?Arguimbau?suit?and?the?Friedman?litigation.
FN?6.?In?the?small?claims?action,?petitioner?proceeded?under?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?1992,?which?provides:?”A?witness?disobeying?a?subpoena?also?forfeits?to?the?party?aggrieved?the?sum?of?five?hundred?dollars?($500),?and?all?damages?which?he?may?sustain?by?the?failure?of?the?witness?to?attend,?which?forfeiture?and?damages?may?be?recovered?in?a?civil?action.”
FN?7.?The?record?indicates?that?the?Friedman?defamation?action?was?dismissed?on?the?ground?that?an?allegedly?false?police?report?concerning?petitioner?made?by?the?Friedmans?was?absolutely?privileged?under?former?Civil?Code?section?47,?subdivision?2,?a?ruling?which?the?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed,?relying?on?Williams?v.?Taylor?(1982)?129?Cal.App.3d?745?[181?Cal.Rptr.?423].?Petitioner’s?litigation?attorney?in?the?Friedman?case?testified?at?the?hearing?that?as?a?result?of?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?ruling,?he?wrote?a?law?review?article?arguing?the?case?for?a?contrary?rule?of?qualified?privilege.?Another?division?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?has?recently?adopted?such?a?view,?citing?with?approval?counsel’s?law?review?article.?(See?Fenelon?v.?Superior?Court?(1990)?223?Cal.App.3d?1476,?1482,?fn.?8?[273?Cal.Rptr.?367]?[citing?Ablon,?Williams?v.?Taylor:?Communications?to?Police?with?Absolute?Immunity:?Revenge?Courtesy?of?Civil?Code?Section?47(2)?(1986)?18?U.?West?L.A.?L.Rev.?51].)?Although?we?express?no?opinion?on?the?merits?of?the?controversy,?this?account?is?a?forceful?reminder?of?”the?evolutionary?potential?of?legal?principles.”?(Sheldon?Appel?Co.?v.?Albert?&?Oliker,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?886.)
FN?8.?The?hearing?panel’s?conclusion?that?petitioner?used?the?courts?for?”personal?reasons”?is?also?puzzling.?The?bulk?of?civil?proceedings?brought?by?individuals?would?qualify?for?reprimand?under?this?rubric.?Although?inartfully?phrased,?we?surmise?that?the?thrust?of?the?panel’s?finding?is?that?the?two?lawsuits?filed?by?petitioner?against?erstwhile?friends?demonstrated?a?practice?of?harassing?others?by?bringing?groundless?litigation.?This?is?simply?another?way?of?asserting?that?petitioner’s?claims?were?meritless,?a?conclusion?we?consider?and?reject?in?the?main?text.
FN?9.?Friedman?admits?in?one?tape?recording?to?making?hang-up?calls?to?Robin?Spivack,?his?former?roommate.?This?was?corroborated?by?telephone?records?admitted?into?evidence.?The?admission?is?relevant?to?the?question?of?who?mailed?the?obscene?postcards?in?light?of?a?consistent?link?between?the?two;?hang-up?calls?and?anonymous?mailings?began?almost?simultaneously?after?Spivack?evicted?Friedman?from?the?apartment?the?two?had?shared,?and?several?of?those?who?received?obscene?mail?also?received?hang-up?calls.?In?addition,?there?was?evidence?that?Friedman?had?left?obscene?messages?on?petitioner’s?telephone?answering?machine,?the?contents?of?which?were?similar?to?messages?on?some?of?the?postcards.?Thus,?a?finding?that?Friedman?was?the?source?of?the?hang-up?calls?would?lay?the?groundwork?for?an?inference?that?petitioner?was?not?the?author?of?the?postcards.
In?addition,?Friedman’s?portrayal?of?himself?as?a?victim?of?an?obscene?mail?campaign?is?undercut?by?proof?that?he?fabricated?the?names?of?two?nonexistent?galleries?he?said?had?received?obscene?mail?addressed?to?him.
FN?10.?So?explosive?were?the?contents?of?the?tape?recordings?that?Robert?Friedman?threatened?to?leave?the?witness?stand?and?the?hearing?room?if?the?panel?permitted?the?tape?to?be?played.?The?panel?declined?petitioner’s?request?to?permit?the?tape?to?be?played?and?Friedman?to?be?cross-examined?as?to?its?contents.?It?did?admit?into?evidence?transcripts?of?the?two?taped?conversations.
FN?11.?Petitioner?challenges?the?hearing?panel’s?findings?based?on?the?cassette?recordings,?on?due?process?grounds,?arising?from?the?lack?of?notice?that?his?conduct?in?making?the?tapes?would?form?the?basis?for?a?separate?finding?of?bad?moral?character.?(See?Rose?v.?State?Bar?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?646?[262?Cal.Rptr.?702,?779?P.2d?761];?Gendron?v.?State?Bar?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?409?[197?Cal.Rptr.?590,?673?P.2d?260];?Woodard?v.?State?Bar?(1940)?16?Cal.2d?755?[108?P.2d?407].)?We?do?not?reach?the?issue?in?light?of?our?conclusions?that?petitioner’s?conduct?fell?within?the?exception?of?Penal?Code?section?633.5?and?that?the?circumstances?under?which?the?tape?recordings?were?made?do?not?show?bad?moral?character.
FN?12.?In?its?brief,?the?State?Bar?disclaims?any?reliance?on?what?it?terms?the?hearing?panel’s?”gratuitous?reference”?to?the?tape?recordings?as?a?ground?for?the?panel’s?conclusion?regarding?petitioner’s?moral?character.?The?use?of?the?tapes?is?not?so?easily?dismissed,?however.?Its?opinion?plainly?discloses?that?the?hearing?panel?regarded?the?finding?that?petitioner?had?violated?a?criminal?statute?as?”further?evidence,”?as?the?panel?put?it,?of?petitioner’s?”lack?of?respect?for?the?law,”?a?matter?it?felt?”impelled?to?raise”?on?its?own?even?though?the?State?Bar’s?charges?against?petitioner?did?not?include?the?taping?episodes.
The?tape?recordings?and?the?findings?regarding?their?making?were?thus?integral?to?the?panel’s?overall?assessment?of?petitioner’s?character?as?one?who?”broke?the?law”?in?the?very?process?of?seeking?to?demonstrate?his?moral?fitness?to?practice.?Although?we?cannot?say?to?what?extent?the?conclusion?that?petitioner?violated?a?criminal?statute?under?such?circumstances?affected?the?panel’s?evaluation?of?the?evidence?surrounding?the?charges?against?him,?we?are?persuaded?that?it?must?have?had?a?powerful?effect?on?the?panel’s?estimate?of?petitioner’s?character;?we?cannot?simply?ignore?it,?as?the?State?Bar?implicitly?asks?us?to?do.
FN?13.?The?first?conclusion?appears?rooted?in?the?testimony?of?Friedman’s?mother?that?her?son?suffered?from?a?learning?disability;?it?was?undermined,?however,?by?the?testimony?of?a?former?roommate?of?Friedman?and?by?the?expert?testimony?of?a?handwriting?analyst.?The?second?conclusion?is?perhaps?simply?a?blind?refusal?to?pursue?the?dynamics?of?Friedman’s?personality?to?their?conclusion;?certainly?there?is?nothing?inherently?”incredible”-in?the?sense?that?it?can?be?ruled?out?a?priori-in?the?idea.
FN?14.?The?State?Bar’s?questioned?documents?expert?testified?that?she?examined?between?75?and?80?of?the?postcards?and?developed?49?prints;?only?one?was?petitioner’s.
FN?15.?If?credited,?this?evidence?would?support?petitioner’s?testimony?that?he?had?at?some?point?inspected?the?postcard?and,?examining?it?in?an?attempt?to?determine?if?any?clue?to?its?origin?could?be?gleaned?from?the?newsprint?taped?to?it,?had?lifted?the?tape?with?the?tip?of?his?index?finger,?leaving?the?telltale?print.?Petitioner?testified?that?he?and?Friedman?sometimes?exchanged?postcards?each?had?received?in?the?mail?and?discussed?them?in?an?attempt?to?ferret?out?their?source.?Although?petitioner?admitted?that?he?could?not?specifically?recall?examining?the?card?bearing?his?fingerprint,?he?testified?that?it?was?typical?of?those?Friedman?had?shown?him?that?had?scraps?of?newspaper?taped?to?them,?and?that?he?had?examined?these?specimens?in?the?hope?of?identifying?the?sender.
FN?16.?The?State?Bar?offered?the?testimony?of?its?own?expert-who?originally?identified?petitioner’s?fingerprint?on?the?postcard-to?refute?the?account?of?petitioner’s?analyst.?She?testified?that?she?observed?no?evidence?of?tampering?with?the?tape?or?newsprint.?She?admitted,?however,?that?her?original?examination?of?the?postcard?had?been?made?to?identify?the?fingerprint,?and?had?not?been?conducted?with?petitioner’s?theory?in?mind;?her?subsequent?examination-undertaken?to?disprove?petitioner’s?theory-had?consisted?of?an?unaided?visual?examination.
FN?17.?The?panel?also?rejected?petitioner’s?alternative?theory?that?Friedman?might?have?retrieved?the?postcard?from?the?gallery?to?which?it?was?mailed?and?then?showed?it?to?petitioner.
FN?18.?Or?more?precisely,?petitioner?did?not?testify,?some?six?years?after?the?event,?to?having?examined?a?specific?postcard?and?to?having?noticed?the?absence?of?a?cancellation?stamp.?Petitioner’s?testimony?was?vague?as?to?his?recollections?surrounding?the?postcard.?This?is?not?surprising?given?the?passage?of?six?years;?a?less?equivocal?recollection?might?have?been?less?convincing.