Deception in Admission Application : Newport Lawyer Removed From Attorneys Roll

The first time he applied, Marc L. Goldstein was denied admission to the State Bar in 1983 on charges he had filed groundless lawsuits, made false statements, committed fraud and practiced law without a license.

But 2 years later, Goldstein, without citing the previous disciplinary proceedings, applied for admission again.

Bar officials unknowingly allowed him to proceed. And it was not until he had passed the Bar exam and was admitted to practice law that it was discovered he earlier had been denied admission for lack of moral character.

This week, however, the state Supreme Court removed Goldstein’s name from the roll of attorneys, unanimously rejecting his claim that he had made no attempt to deceive the Bar and was being made a scapegoat for its acknowledged negligence in failing to note the previous action.

“Any inadequacy on the State Bar’s part does not absolve the petitioner of his own responsibility to bring the prior proceedings to its attention,” the court said in a 24-page unsigned opinion.

Under the ruling, Goldstein, 34, who has been practicing in Newport Beach, will be able to seek readmission to the Bar, apparently without time restrictions, but will have to undergo another inquiry on his moral character, according to Bar officials. Had Goldstein been disbarred, instead of being removed from the roll of attorneys, he would have had to wait at least 5 years before seeking readmission.

Goldstein’s lawyer, David A. Clare of Santa Ana, defended his client as having acted in good faith and faulted the Bar for failing to detect the previous proceeding.

“There clearly was no intent to commit any fraudulent act,” Clare said. “What happened was (that) nobody at the Bar punched his name into the computer as they should have.”

Thomas W. Eres of Sacramento, chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners, called the case “a very, very unique situation, where the applicant himself rather successfully manipulated the system.”

Eres said several steps have been taken by the Bar to improve procedures for reviewing the 12,000 applications it receives annually.

“I’m confident our systems are sound and will be applied so that we can pick up on this kind of thing,” he said.

The unusual case began in 1979 when Goldstein took and passed the California Bar exam. But later his admission to practice was denied when an investigation found he had been involved in more than 50 lawsuits, mostly as a plaintiff; filed numerous suits to harass people in petty disputes; knowingly made false statements under oath; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; and committed several acts of fraud--including the filing of false claims for “lost” money orders.

In 1985, Goldstein applied to take the Bar exam again, finally passing on a second try. Neither his letter to the Bar nor his application forms mentioned the previous hearings or the denial of certification to practice law, according to the Bar. This time, the Bar routinely recommended his admission and not until he was admitted by the high court did Bar officials discover the oversight and institute proceedings against Goldstein.

The justices on Thursday rejected Goldstein’s contention that the Bar should have checked its records when, in his new application, he made reference to “my situation.”

The court noted that the application form requires re-applicants to state whether there have been any “new incidents” in civil cases or administrative proceedings in which they have been involved since previous application. “The (disciplinary) proceeding was indeed a ‘new incident,’ ” the court observed, and Goldstein should have listed it in his new application.