Disbarment for refusing to obey court orders

JOEL ANDREW DRUM [#92607] has been fighting disbarment recommendations by the State Bar Court since 2002. The Sherman Oaks lawyer finally lost his battle Sept. 26, 2008, when the Supreme Court not only stripped him of his license but again ordered him to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. His admitted refusal to do so ultimately led to the disbarment.

Drum’s saga began seven years ago, when a bar court judge recommended his disbarment. The court found that Drum, who turns 54 this month, disobeyed a court order when he failed to return client files, appeared in court as the attorney of record for two former clients after his employment was terminated, and did not report judicial sanctions. Drum appealed to the court’s review panel and asked for a new trial, arguing that he was denied a fair trial because the judge was biased. In the alternative, he asked that the discipline be reduced to a public reproval because he acted in good faith.

In 2005, the review department rejected Drum’s arguments but found the discipline recommendation excessive and recommended that Drum be suspended for three years, make restitution of nearly $10,000 and comply with rule 955. The rule, since renumbered as rule 9.20, requires lawyers who are suspended to notify their clients, opposing counsel, the courts and any other pertinent party that they cannot practice. The lawyer must then submit an affidavit to that effect to the bar court. Failure to comply is grounds for disbarment.

Drum then took his argument to the California Supreme Court, which denied his petition, suspended him and ordered him to comply with rule 955, now called rule 9.20.

When Drum did not comply, the bar again charged him in 2006 with misconduct — violating an order of the Supreme Court. A different hearing judge found him guilty, “based on his deliberate failure” to file the required affidavit and recommended disbarment. Drum also had not filed two probation reports.

Again he appealed to the review department, arguing that no discipline was warranted and that to impose such a punishment would only add “insult to injury.” He claimed there were no grounds for misconduct because the Supreme Court had no basis to order his suspension and compliance with the rule in question.

Although the review department rejected the disbarment recommendation in 2005, three years later it said Drum’s “obdurate refusal” to comply with court rules compelled his disbarment. “His continuing assertion that he is the one wronged and his refusal to comply with the Supreme Court order go beyond tenacity to truculence,” wrote a three-judge review panel.

The panel also said Drum’s refusal to file the required affidavit “manifests his disdain for the Supreme court’s authority to oversee the practice of law.”

When the hearing judge asked Drum why he agreed to be suspended but refused to comply with rule 9.20, he answered, “It’s clear the Supreme Court doesn’t want me … out there doing great damage to the public. So I’ll go along with that … Frankly the big difference is if I had gone to court it would have been a crime.” The review panel said this “rationalization calls into question his fitness to practice.”

In the original case, Drum was hired in the early 1990s by two insurance carriers to handle certain matters, both on a contingency fee basis. Both companies fired him and requested the return of their files. He refused until an agreement was reached for compensation. Both companies sued Drum in 1998 and won court orders that he return the files. He appealed one case unsuccessfully and was sanctioned $3,320 for filing a frivolous appeal for the purpose of delay. One company spent about $81,000 on its effort to recover the files and other litigation with Drum; the other spent nearly $10,000 on fees and costs.

Drum received some mitigation for cooperating with the bar’s investigation.