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back to prison when his parole was revoked for charges of heroin possession and theft and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. |
