California Bar Journal
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA - SEPTEMBER 2000
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
High court denies admission
spacer.gif (810 bytes)
Continued from Page 1
spacer.gif (810 bytes)

not behaved in an exemplary manner since he last completed parole, that he is not fully reformed, and that he is not sufficiently trustworthy to practice law,” the justices wrote in an opinion from the full court.

Gossage had fought to be admitted to practice, arguing he turned his life around and has become a productive citizen possessing good moral character.

Burden of proof

But the court said he did not meet the burden of proving rehabilitation, suggesting that Gossage should have led a clean life for the 10 years between the 1984 completion of parole until the time he sought a moral character determination from the committee of bar examiners in January 1994.

Instead, during that time, he was convicted of eight misdemeanor traffic violations, did not appear in court, failed to pay fines and was taken to small claims court when he did not make payments for a car he bought.

Gossage, scion of a prominent San Francisco family, became addicted to heroin and alcohol by the time he was 17 or 18. He already had been convicted of forgery for stealing checks from his mother and grandmother when, in 1975, he killed his sister, beating her with a hammer and stabbing her 45 times with scissors. He was convicted of manslaughter and spent two and a half years in prison.

Parole revoked

Upon his release, he resumed the life of a heroin addict and was sent back to prison when his parole was revoked for charges of heroin possession and theft and four DUI arrests.

Gossage emerged from prison in 1983 clean and sober and began the long process of cleaning up his life. He graduated from Sonoma State University, received a law degree from Golden Gate University and passed the bar exam on his first attempt in 1993. He also became a successful real estate developer.

But the traffic violations and related offenses suggested to the court a lack of respect for the law and the courts.

“At worst, Gossage’s conduct during this time suggests a hopeless refusal or inability to conform to societal rules when considered in light of the moral turpitude and lawlessness he displayed over the preceding 10-year period,” the justices wrote. “At best, any rehabilitative trend is not complete and the risk is still too high that he will disregard legal and ethical obligations if allowed to practice law.”

Ominous acts

The court also found Gossage’s actions “particularly ominous because they occurred after Gossage entered law school, when he presumably understood that such conduct was offensive and could jeopardize his ability to practice law.”

Exacerbating his conduct, the court said, was Gossage’s failure to disclose 13 of 17 criminal convictions on his application to practice law, as well as dates of employment and other required information. Further, he signed the application under penalty of perjury.

The application for admission therefore “created a materially false impression about Gossage’s past and present moral character,” the justices said, likening his behavior to the manner in which he ignored or mishandled the driving violations and related court orders.

“Again, we infer Gossage cannot be trusted to appreciate and fulfill his legal responsibilities,” the court wrote.