A Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is Not the Same as a Violation of a Court Order.
We suspect considerations of professional honor and shame played a more important part than did the amount of the monetary sanctions involved in the next case, Conservatorship of Bibiana Becerra, Case No. D053519 (4th Dist., Div. 1, July 28, 2009) (certified for publication).
Objector and appellant, attorney Linda Paquette, who represented a party in the action, appealed court orders requiring her to pay $1,000 sanctions to the clerk of the court, and pay $2,587.50 for attorney fees to the conservatee's court appointed attorney ("CAA"). Ms. Paquette apparently went sideways with the trial court after she allegedly spoke ex parte with the brain injured conservatee, who was represented by counsel. The CAA and the probate judge viewed the ex parte communication as a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, .
Orders to show cause were duly (not!) issued by the probate court to put the appellant on notice that imposition of sanctions was being considered under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. sections 177.5 and 575.2, and eventually attorneys fees and sanctions orders were confirmed by the probate court. However, sections 177.5 and 575.2 each, "requires a knowing violation of a valid order of the court without good cause or substantial justification." Winikow v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.App.4th 719, 726 (2000). Here, however, the alleged violation was of the Rules of Professional Conduct -- and this published opinion reminds us that a Rule of Professional Conduct is not the same as a court order. In short, a hook upon which to hang the sanctions award (and the sanctioned attorney) was missing.
In addition, lack of clarity in the orders presented a problem with notice and due process.
Conclusion: "Due to the probate court's lack of compliance with the legal standards and purposes authorized by sections 177.5 and 575.2, the orders are legally erroneous, unsupported by the record, and a prejudicial abuse of discretion." Justice Huffman authored the 3-0 opinion.