tribunal in which litigation is pending—learn about an attorney’s discipline.” (Lydon v. State (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 1181, 1187, emphasis added [discussing former rule 955, renumbered as Bar rule 9.20].) to comply with the rule causes serious disruption in judicial administration “Failure of disciplinary proceedings . . . designed to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” (Durbin Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 461, 468.) v. State this broad construction, and reading the rule in harmony with the Supreme Court’s overarching goal of public protection, we find that is most certainly pending when an “litigation” attorney avails himself or herself of the adjudicative functions of a court, seeking legal redress on behalf of a client. Van Dusen’s argument that bankruptcy is not within the meaning “litigation” of rule 9.20 ignores the salient point that the trustee and the bankruptcy court have their own interests in managing cases and court resources. As such, her failure to notify them of her inability to appear and represent clients undermines the very purpose of the rule. Van Dusen’s focus on the nonadversarial circumstances of Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases is similarly misplaced. Although such proceedings may generally be suited for mutual accord, the potential always exists for them to become adversarial. In fact, the trustee in both the and matters become adverse once the debtors ceased making plan payments. Querida Nguyen did Under these circumstances, and given Probation’s directive to Van Dusen to provide the required notifications in her bankruptcy cases, Van Dusen should have taken every possible action to ensure that concerned parties” were apprised of her suspension—which she did not “all do in the and matters. Querida Nguyen Fourth and finally, Van Dusen argues that she timely filed a compliance declaration and that any subsequent late-filed amendments should be excused. This argument fails. Although she timely filed her first declaration on October 3, 2014, she knew it was not accurate and did not file a conforming declaration until December 1, 2014. Given the strict nature and enforcement of
tribunal in which litigation is pending—learn about an attorney’s discipline.” (Lydon v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 1181, 1187, emphasis added [discussing former rule 955, renumbered as rule 9.20].) “Failure to comply with the rule causes serious disruption in judicial administration of disciplinary proceedings . . . designed to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” (Durbin v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 461, 468.) this broad construction, and reading the rule in harmony with the Supreme Court’s overarching goal of public protection, we find that “litigation” is most certainly pending when an attorney avails himself or herself of the adjudicative functions of a court, seeking legal redress on behalf of a client. Van Dusen’s argument that bankruptcy is not “litigation” within the meaning of rule 9.20 ignores the salient point that the trustee and the bankruptcy court have their own interests in managing cases and court resources. As such, her failure to notify them of her inability to appear and represent clients undermines the very purpose of the rule. Van Dusen’s focus on the nonadversarial circumstances of Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases is similarly misplaced. Although such proceedings may generally be suited for mutual accord, the potential always exists for them to become adversarial. In fact, the trustee in both the Querida and Nguyen matters did become adverse once the debtors ceased making plan payments. Under these circumstances, and given Probation’s directive to Van Dusen to provide the required notifications in her bankruptcy cases, Van Dusen should have taken every possible action to ensure that “all concerned parties” were apprised of her suspension—which she did not do in the Querida and Nguyen matters. Fourth and finally, Van Dusen argues that she timely filed a compliance declaration and that any subsequent late-filed amendments should be excused. This argument fails. Although she timely filed her first declaration on October 3, 2014, she knew it was not accurate and did not file a conforming declaration until December 1, 2014. Given the strict nature and enforcement of
Van%20Dusen.docx