TALLAHASSEE – Joseph Henry Marman, who practices law in Citrus Heights, was suspended from the practice of law for two years and until he provides proof of his rehabilitation after being terminated from the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP).
Marman was suspended after being terminated from the ADP for allegedly failing to comply with the program’s requirements. He had allegedly tested positive for alcohol in one lab test, missed another test and had an unexcused absence from his Lawyer Assistance Program group.
“Marman’s underlying discipline stems from three criminal convictions,” the official Board document said. “In October 2010, he pleaded no contest to driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher after he was pulled over for driving 40 mph in a 55-mph zone, then accelerating to 65 and crossing into oncoming traffic.”
The document also explained that in February 2007, he pleaded no contest to reckless driving and in March 2013, he pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of fighting in public after he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend.
“In this disciplinary proceeding, (Marman) was accepted for participation in the State Bar Court’s Alternative Discipline Program (ADP),” the document said. “The court recommends, among other things, that (Marman) be suspended from the practice of law for two years and until he complies with standard Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, title IV, Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.”
Furthermore, because of Marman’s ADP violations and subsequent termination, the document explained that the court issued a decision recommending that a high level of discipline be implemented.
To be reinstated, the court explained that Marman must provide satisfactory proof to the State Bar Court of his rehabilitation, fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the general law before his actual suspension will be terminated.
The document showed that Marman’s prior record of discipline shows three prior disciplinary matters, which are all alcohol related and created issues with professional codes of conduct.
“In (Marman’s) first disciplinary matter, (he) received 60-days actual suspension, two-years stayed suspension, and four years' probation, effective July 14, 1995, for failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to deposit client funds in trust and engaging in moral turpitude in multiple client matters, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct and Business and Professions Code section 6106,” the document said. “In (his) second disciplinary matter, (Marman) received 14-days stayed suspension and one-year probation, effective April 25, 1998, for practicing law while suspended and for failing to adhere to probation conditions stemming from his first discipline.”
In Marman’s third disciplinary matter, the document explained that he was placed on a 30-day suspension, a 90-day stayed suspension and one-year probation, effective Sept. 7, 2000. This decision was ordered for failing to comply with probation conditions stemming from his second discipline.
Because of his alcohol-related convictions, and his inability to comply with ADP regulations to regain his license, Marman was considered a risk to similar repeated behaviors, the document said. Only after Marman can show his rehabilitation will he be re-admitted.