## Facts

- A criminal defendant, Darryl Geyer, set an apartment building on fire, causing multiple injuries and one death; he confessed and later pleaded guilty while preserving appellate issues regarding his confession.
- Joshua Dale, a California attorney, represented tenants in a civil action alleging the landlord’s negligence contributed to the injuries from the fire.
- Dale sought a declaration from Geyer about the building’s condition before the fire to support the tenants’ civil claims.
- Dale requested permission from Geyer’s criminal defense counsel to speak with Geyer; counsel refused.
- Despite the refusal, Dale repeatedly contacted Geyer directly in custodial settings (courthouse, jail, prison) to obtain the declaration.
- Dale assured Geyer that signing the declaration would not harm his criminal appeal and promised to help with parole or other legal matters.
- Geyer signed a declaration that included admissions to the arson, creating an additional confession that could prejudice his criminal position.
- Dale did not provide the promised legal assistance and stopped communicating after the civil case settled.
- Geyer filed a complaint, and the State Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Dale.

## Issues

1. Whether Dale violated the no-contact rule by communicating with Geyer about the subject of representation despite knowing Geyer was represented by counsel and lacking counsel’s consent.
2. Whether Dale’s assurances about the declaration’s effect on Geyer’s criminal case and promises of assistance constituted dishonesty or moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code section 6106.
3. What discipline was appropriate in light of the misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The Review Department found Dale violated former rule 2-100 by communicating with a represented person about the subject of representation without the consent of that person’s counsel.
- The Review Department found Dale committed acts involving dishonesty or moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code section 6106 by materially misleading Geyer about risks to his criminal appeal and by using promises of legal assistance as inducement and failing to fulfill them.
- The Review Department recommended discipline including a period of actual suspension (with additional conditions such as probation), reflecting serious misconduct with recognized mitigation.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not communicate directly or indirectly about the subject of representation with a person the lawyer knows is represented by counsel in the matter, absent that counsel’s consent (former Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 2-100).
- The no-contact rule applies when different proceedings (civil and criminal) substantially overlap in subject matter such that the communication concerns the represented person’s matter.
- Misleading statements or assurances by a lawyer on matters of legal consequence, especially when used to secure cooperation from a vulnerable nonclient, can constitute dishonesty or moral turpitude warranting discipline (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106).
- A promise of legal assistance made as leverage to obtain a benefit, followed by nonperformance, may support a finding of moral turpitude when it reflects disregard for truthfulness and the person’s interests.
- Attorney discipline is aimed at public protection and consistent sanctions; harm or substantial risk of harm and intentional or reckless disregard of ethical duties are aggravating factors, while isolated misconduct and other mitigation may reduce the sanction.

## Conclusion

The Review Department concluded that Dale improperly contacted a represented criminal defendant to obtain a declaration for civil litigation and induced an additional confession through misleading assurances and unkept promises, warranting actual suspension and related discipline to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.


In re Dale, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 798 (Review Dep’t 2005)