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
“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
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.