In re Warnock

These two disciplinary cases follow prior discipline imposed on E. Herman Warnock in 1987, 1989, January 1998, and December 1998, as well as an interim suspension in January and February 1998. Because of Warnock’s repeated disciplinary infractions and his pattern of refusing to respond to disciplinary authorities, we find that this is an appropriate case to apply Bar Rule 4-103 and impose a six-month suspension.

In S99Y0032, a client filed a grievance alleging that Warnock received money from him while suspended and then refused to return the money. The State Bar issued a notice of investigation to which Warnock failed to respond. The Bar then filed a notice of discipline seeking a public reprimand, finding that it had probable cause to believe Warnock violated Standard 68 failure to respond to disciplinary authorities of Bar Rule 4-102 d based on his failure to respond to the notice of investigation. The Bar sought a public reprimand, and Warnock never filed a rejection under Rule 4-208.1. Under Rule 4-208.1 b, when an attorney fails to reject a notice of discipline, “the respondent shall be subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by the Supreme Court.”