Bar court urges reinstatement of former civil rights lawyer
Former civil rights attorney A. THOMAS HUNT, who resigned from the State
Bar in 1994 in the face of multiple charges of misconduct, will win back his
law license if the Supreme Court accepts a recommendation by the State Bar Court.
Hunt [#55353], 63, blamed his problems on alcoholism and told the court he has
not had a drink since 1992.
The bar court recommended Hunt's reinstatement in July 2002, but the State
Bar sought review, arguing that Hunt was neither remorseful nor appreciative
of the extent of harm he caused and that he had not proved his rehabilitation.
The court's review department disagreed. Acknowledging that Hunt's conduct
was reprehensible and caused great harm, Judge Judith Epstein also noted the
"great good" that resulted from his career. Hunt's record of rehabilitation
is not perfect, she wrote, but "perfection is not what is required for reinstatement."
A graduate of Harvard law school, Hunt became a well-known civil rights advocate,
serving as lead counsel in numerous class action civil rights and employment
discrimination cases. "I always thought [Hunt] would end up on the lawyers'
equivalent of Mt. Rush-more," wrote federal appellate Judge Stephen S. Trott
in a letter on his behalf. He added that Hunt "earned the great respect of many
of his friends and colleagues for his selfless devotion to others less fortunate
than himself."
Wrote longtime friend and attorney Paul Grossman, Hunt "probably obtained more
good jobs for minorities and women through class action litigation than any
single human being."
But alcohol was Hunt's downfall and by 1991 he was suspended for not paying
his bar dues. He continued to practice, however, and before getting sober and
paying his dues the following year, he faced a wide range of misconduct involving
10 separate client matters, some of which were class actions affecting numerous
clients.
So acrimonious was his relationship with one-time client Howard Bennett, who
won a $1.575 million default judgment for Hunt's mishandling of his civil rights
claim, that Bennett established the "Victims of Lawyer Hunt Club Inc." for individuals
who claimed Hunt harmed them.
He practiced law while suspended, didn't complete the work he was hired to
do, did not keep clients informed about the progress of their cases, failed
to appear at hearings and abandoned his clients. The dispute with Bennett led
to three charges of felony grand theft, which were dropped. Bennett and Hunt
ultimately were involved in eight civil suits against one another before settling
their various claims three years ago.
Subsequent to his resignation, Hunt worked as a paralegal and in 2001, applied
for reinstatement. At a three-day hearing before the bar court, he presented
17 good character letters extolling his legal abilities and service to the community
as a result of his civil rights cases. The judge recommended his reinstatement.
In agreeing, Epstein, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, relied heavily
on the testimonials of judges, attorneys and former clients, most of whom acknowledged
Hunt's alcoholism. Those witnesses described him as superior in intellect, honesty
and commitment to the law, she said, adding that his work as a paralegal was
"extensive and significant, and he was entrusted . . . to continue to challenge
unfair disparate treatment of minorities and the under-represented."
Epstein lauded Hunt's efforts to overcome his alcoholism, as well as his steps
to make restitution to clients he wronged.
She also disagreed with the bar's position that Hunt is not remorseful or cognizant
of the extent of harm he caused, noting that the record "is replete with [Hunt's]
unequivocal acknowledgement of the serious harm he caused to his clients, his
friends and to the administration of justice."
Bar prosecutor Alan Gordon said he was both surprised and disappointed by the
ruling. "The review department obviously did not deem the shortcomings in the
case for rehabilitation to be as significant as the office of chief trial counsel,"
he said. He added that no decision has been made on whether to appeal.
Joining Epstein in the decision were review Judges Ronald Stovitz and Madge
Watai.
|