Paonessa v. State Bar

THE COURT. Petitioner, a member of the Bar, was charged in five counts with conduct allegedly requiring discipline. In count one it was claimed he had represented Mrs. Olive Jean Deveux in an annulment action against her husband, and that he had prepared the complaint so as to allege that before marriage Deveux falsely represented he desired children but after marriage had refused to cohabit so as to cause children to be conceived; that petitioner knew at the commencement of the action that the parties had a child but petitioner instructed Mr. and Mrs. Deveux not to disclose the child’s existence and instructed plaintiff to testify that Deveux refused to cohabit with or have children by her.

Count two charged similar conduct in connection with petitioner’s representation of Louis Stander in an annulment action by him against his wife. The parties to that action had two children as issue of the marriage, but petitioner instructed Stander to testify that there were none.

Count three charged that in the annulment action in count two petitioner caused, without authorization, Stander to sign Mrs. Stander’s name to a document filed in the action, called a general appearance and acknowledgment of service of process, and did not disclose the false signing to the court.

Count four charged that over a period of time petitioner filed 40 annulment actions in Riverside County and in many of them made the same allegations of promise of children and refusal to cohabit mentioned in the first two counts; that some of the parties resided in Los Angeles County, rather than Riverside.

Count five was a general allegation charging no specific acts of misconduct.

The local administrative committee found all of the charges to be true and recommended two years’ suspension. The Board of Governors of The State Bar dismissed the third, fourth and fifth counts, but adopted the findings on counts one and two and recommended suspension for two years on [224]the theory that petitioner had violated his oath and duties as an attorney (Bus.. & Prof. Code, §§ 6103, 6067, 6068) and rule 11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (26 Cal.2d 35), and had committed acts involving moral turpitude (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106).

Petitioner contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings on counts one and two, and in that connection, that the great time elapsing between the annulment actions and the disciplinary proceedings placed him at a disadvantage in preparing his defense. There is no dispute as to either of the counts that petitioner represented the persons mentioned in the annulment actiohs; that those actions were based on the fraud alleged with reference to bearing children as heretofore set forth; that witnesses were called to prove the allegations, and that there were children which were the issue of the marriages involved in those cases and that the annulments were granted. Petitioner asserts the evidence is insufficient to show he knew of the children when he prepared the complaints and tried the actions.