State Bar’s Decision that Discipline Was Not Warranted Does Not Move Court to Overturn Sanctions Award.
The genesis of the next case was a heart-rending child custody dispute that could be a made-for-television movie. Unfortunately, it was real life rather than entertainment. Robinson v. Charlton A., A104663 (1st Dist., Div. 2, July 27, 2009) (unpublished).
Petitioner Robinson had been mother’s attorney in the custody dispute. Respondent Charlton A. was the father. The parents fought over custody arrangements and the location of the school their daughter would attend. A licensed psychologist reported to the court that both parents were excellent parents. But the working relationship between the parents deteriorated badly when the mother stopped paying expenses on a condominium the father owned, the father moved to evict her, and eventually, the mother fled with her child, resulting in the mother’s sentencing to 90 days in county jail after a nolo contendere plea to parental kidnapping. What a mess.
The mother claimed that she had moved away with her child, “with advice and permission of my attorney.” In a nonpublished opinion back in 2005, the Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court custody ruling, and imposed sanctions. The mother’s attorney was sanctioned because the Court of Appeal believed she had appealed from numerous non-appealable orders, and misrepresented facts to the court. The Court of Appeal added, “Robinson refused to answer (on the basis that it might incriminate her) any questions about whether she knew or advised Mother to leave the state with the child.” This apparently created the appearance of a conflict over testimony between the lawyer and her client. What a mess.
However, after the State Bar “found clear and convincing evidence did not establish that Robinson committed acts of moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline,” attorney Robinson filed her petition for writ of error coram vobis with the Supreme Court — which court granted the writ, and remanded to the Court of Appeal, with directions to vacate and reconsider the award for sanctions in light of the State Bar decision.
But on remand, the Court of Appeal was not moved one bit:
“We conclude that the State Bar Court’s decision has no effect on our determination to impose sanctions against Robinson. Any alleged errors in our prior decision were based on the record before us and Robinson was responsible for providing this court with a complete record that included all relevant facts. She was also responsible to use the available procedures to correct any alleged errors. Robinson is now belatedly attempting to reargue the facts or raise new facts without making any attempt to explain how any of these alleged new facts satisfy the requirements for a writ of coram vobis.”
Justice Lambden authored the 3-0 opinion.
BONUS: And just what is a writ of error coram vobis? Our often correct source of knowledge about all things, Wikipedia, explains: “Coram nobis, or coram vobis (or error coram nobis or error coram vobis, from the Latin “in our presence”, usually translated in context as “the error before us”) is a legal writ issued by a court, acting in its capacity as a Court of Equity to correct a previous error “of the most fundamental character” to “achieve justice” where “no other remedy” is available. . . .The writ of error coram vobis, or coram nobis, is an ancient writ of the common law. It was called coram nobis (before us) in King’s Bench because the king was supposed to preside in person in that court. It was called coram vobis (before you — the king’s justices) in Common Pleas, where the king was not supposed to preside.” Clearly this case involved a writ of coram vobis, since the King was not actually present.