## Facts

- Donald H. Segretti was admitted to the California Bar in 1967 and later served over four years in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, including service in Vietnam, before leaving active duty in 1971.
- In 1971, Segretti was recruited by individuals associated with President Nixon’s reelection effort to conduct disruptive “pranks” aimed at dividing Democratic presidential candidates and their supporters during the 1972 campaign.
- Segretti engaged in a series of deceptive activities designed to mislead political actors and the public, including:
  - Distributing a forged letter on Senator Edmund Muskie’s campaign letterhead containing false accusations against other candidates.
  - Distributing a fabricated news release on Senator Hubert Humphrey’s stationery with false claims about Representative Shirley Chisholm’s mental health.
  - Preparing forged letters on Senator Eugene McCarthy’s letterhead intended to manipulate delegate voting behavior.
  - Arranging for bogus campaign materials to be printed and circulated to create confusion and disruption.
- In federal court in 1973, Segretti pleaded guilty to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 612 (political publications distributed without required attribution) and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to violate § 612; he received consecutive one-year terms with most time suspended and three years’ probation.
- After receiving the conviction record, the California Supreme Court referred the matter to the State Bar for a hearing on whether the underlying facts involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline and for a disciplinary recommendation.
- The State Bar consolidated discipline based on the convictions with separate charges alleging specified acts of campaign-related misconduct; the Disciplinary Board found moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline but did not reach agreement on the precise sanction.

## Issues

1. Whether the facts and circumstances underlying Segretti’s federal convictions and related campaign conduct involved moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting attorney discipline.
2. What level and type of discipline was necessary in light of the seriousness of the misconduct and mitigating evidence.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that Segretti’s conduct involved moral turpitude and other misconduct warranting discipline.
- The court treated the matter as more than a technical statutory violation because the underlying conduct reflected deliberate dishonesty and covert manipulation.
- The court rejected disbarment and imposed a significant period of suspension from practice followed by probation subject to conditions.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline, moral turpitude may be found by examining the facts and circumstances of an offense, not merely the statutory elements of conviction.
- Deliberate falsification, forgery, and deceptive conduct intended to mislead the public—especially in a presidential campaign—reflects adversely on an attorney’s fitness and may constitute moral turpitude.
- The primary purposes of attorney discipline are protection of the public and the courts, maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and rehabilitation where feasible; discipline is not imposed chiefly to punish.
- Serious misconduct may warrant substantial suspension even when mitigating factors (e.g., lack of prior discipline, youth, subordinate role, remorse, and post-offense rehabilitation) weigh against disbarment.
- Probationary conditions may be used to monitor compliance and support rehabilitation, including reporting and measures aimed at reinforcing professional responsibilities.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court determined that Segretti’s deceptive campaign activities, tied to his federal convictions, demonstrated moral turpitude warranting discipline, but it concluded that a structured sanction of suspension and probation—rather than disbarment—adequately protected the public and the profession while allowing for rehabilitation.


Segretti v. State Bar, 544 P.2d 929 (Cal. 1976)