In Re Menna
47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 11 Cal. 4th 975, 905 P.2d 944 (1995)
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the State Bar who was previously disbarred in another state bears a heavy burden of proving rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence, requiring a lengthy period of unblemished and exemplary conduct, alongside meaningful efforts toward restitution for past wrongs.
Facts:
- Joseph Menna was admitted to the New Jersey State Bar in December 1976 and soon after began to gamble compulsively and drink heavily.
- From 1980 to 1982, Menna used funds from his client trust account to pay gambling debts, cashing nineteen client settlement checks totaling over $98,000 for his personal purposes.
- In 1979, Menna borrowed $70,000 from a former client, Mrs. Cruice, purportedly to start a practice, but actually to pay gambling losses.
- In 1982, Menna persuaded Mrs. Cruice to cosign a $50,000 bank note to himself, on which he later defaulted, leading Mrs. Cruice to file an ethics complaint.
- While suspended by the New Jersey bar, Menna devised a scheme to manufacture methamphetamine to pay off gambling debts and acquired the necessary precursors, but a former client informed the police.
- Menna moved to Southern California in February 1989 with the purpose of eventually obtaining admission to practice law in California.
- Menna passed the California Bar Examination in July 1990.
- Menna has not gambled since 1982 and has continuously attended Gamblers Anonymous meetings weekly since 1983, also organizing and leading meetings.
- Menna made some initial payments to a bank that had reimbursed the New Jersey Client Security Fund and contacted Mrs. Cruice and the Maressa law firm after his prison release, but these efforts ceased when his construction company went out of business in 1988 and he never arranged repayment.
- As of July 1992, Menna still owed $121,750 to Midatlantic Bank, $25,000 to the Maressa law firm, $95,000 to Mrs. Cruice, and about $535,000 in tax liabilities and penalties to the Internal Revenue Service.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Menna was permanently disbarred from the practice of law in New Jersey in 1984 following felony convictions for theft of client funds, failure to file a state income tax return, and manufacture of methamphetamine.
- Subsequent to his disbarment, Menna moved to California and sought admission to the State Bar.
- After a preliminary investigation, the Committee of Bar Examiners declined to recommend Menna for admission and referred the matter for a formal hearing before the State Bar Court.
- The Hearing Department of the State Bar Court determined Menna possessed the requisite good moral character and certified him to the Supreme Court for admission.
- The Review Department of the State Bar Court affirmed the decision of the Hearing Department.
- The Committee of Bar Examiners (petitioner) petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the Review Department's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did Joseph Menna demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possessed the requisite good moral character for admission to the California State Bar, notwithstanding his prior disbarment in New Jersey for serious professional and criminal misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - THE COURT.
No, Joseph Menna did not establish the requisite good moral character by clear and convincing evidence to warrant admission to the California State Bar. The Court held that an applicant previously disbarred in another state stands in circumstances essentially identical to a disbarred California attorney seeking reinstatement, and thus bears a "heavy burden" of proving rehabilitation by "clear and convincing evidence," without the benefit of all reasonable doubts. While Menna presented substantial evidence of recovery from his gambling addiction, including expert testimony and numerous testimonials from attorneys and friends, and demonstrated a period of unblemished conduct, the Court found these insufficient given the "enormity" and "protracted course" of his prior misconduct. The Court emphasized that "overwhelming proof of reform" requires not only a lengthy period of unblemished conduct but also "exemplary conduct," which notably includes making meaningful restitution. Menna's 5.5 years of unsupervised good conduct since his parole ended in 1987 was deemed an insufficient period, particularly when contrasted with his continuous five-year course of criminal and professional misconduct and the expectation of good conduct while under supervision. Crucially, Menna made only minimal and ultimately ceased efforts to reimburse his many victims and institutions, owing over $270,000 to them (despite bankruptcy discharge) and $535,000 to the IRS; this significant failure to make restitution was considered a substantial factor indicating a lack of full rehabilitation. Although Menna expressed sincere remorse, the Court reiterated that remorse alone is not rehabilitation; true rehabilitation requires "sustained conduct over an extended period of time" demonstrating fitness to practice law and making amends to those harmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and elevates the standard for individuals seeking admission to the California Bar after prior disbarment in another jurisdiction, by explicitly equating their burden of proof to that of a California attorney seeking reinstatement. It establishes that profound personal reform, such as overcoming an addiction and receiving positive character references, while necessary, is not sufficient when the prior misconduct was severe and restitution efforts are minimal. The ruling underscores the importance of a prolonged period of truly exemplary conduct, including demonstrable, active efforts to rectify financial wrongs, as a prerequisite for readmission. This sets a high bar, impacting how disbarred attorneys from other states must demonstrate comprehensive moral rehabilitation, extending beyond personal abstinence to active engagement in making whole their victims and community.
