SAN FRANCISCO – A San Francisco attorney has been disbarred after twice failing to appear before the State Bar Court for a disciplinary trial.
June Pamela Gordy, 57, was to have appeared on one count of moral turpitude after being accused of falsely reporting that she had completed the minimum continuing legal education requirements over a three-year period. She was disbarred on May 28.
In its order recommending Gordy’s disbarment, the State Bar Court stated that because of Gordy's default, it also deemed to be admitted the allegations made in the notice of disciplinary charges (NDC).
The attorney was first admitted to the State Bar in 1989 and has been a member since. She was disbarred by the California Supreme Court, which took the decision based on the State Bar Court’s recommendation.
Gordy was first served notice of the one count charge against her in October 2014.
It alleged she willfully violated the business and professional code, accusing her of misrepresentation by “falsely reporting under penalty of perjury” that she had fully complied with her MCLE requirements for the period of Feb. 1, 2010, to Jan. 31, 2013.
Gordy “knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing that she had failed to complete the MCLE requirements for that period.”
The disbarred attorney filed a response, and Gordy did appear for a status conference in January 2015.
But when the State Bar appeared for trial Feb. 18, Gordy did not arrive. The court issued an order stating that if she did not move to set aside or vacate her default in a timely manner she would be disbarred.
The rule provides that, if an attorney’s default is entered for failing to appear at trial and the attorney fails to have the default set aside or vacated within 45 days, the State Bar will file a petition requesting the court to recommend the attorney’s disbarment.
Gordy filed a motion to set aside her default in early April, and she appeared for a status conference in June, at which a new trial date was set for the following month.
She did not appear for either a pre-trial conference or the trial itself. Again, an order was issued that if she did not timely move to set aside or vacate her default, the court would recommend her disbarment.
“Respondent did not seek to have her second default set aside or vacate,” according to the ruling issued by the State Bar Court, which then recommended her disbarment.
“In the instant case, the court concludes that the requirements of Rule 5.85 have been satisfied, and therefore, grants the petition and recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law,” the court concluded.
It found that the NDC was properly served, that Gordy knew of the proceedings as she filed a response to the NDC, appeared for several hearings, had a prior order of default set aside, and was properly served with notice of the trial date.
Further, the court found, the factual allegations deemed admitted by the entry of default support a finding Gordy violated a statute, rule, or court order that would warrant the imposition of discipline.
“The court recommends that respondent June Pamela Gordy be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of California and that her name be stricken from the roll of attorney,” the State Bar Court recommended.