Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
Standard 1.7(b) states that whenan attorney has been disciplined on two prior occasions “the degree of discipline . . . shall bedisbarment unless the most compelling mitigating circumstances clearly predominate.” Here, wefind no evidence in mitigation and additional evidence in aggravation. Finding no merit toHeurlin’s procedural and substantive challenges, we adopt the hearing judge’s recommendationthat he be disbarred.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Heurlin was admitted to practice law in California on December 10, 1985. In 2004, heand two other attorneys, David Fuller and Henry Schrenker, formed a professional corporation,FairWageLaw, to prosecute wage and hour class action lawsuits against large nationalcorporations. Each of them was a one-third shareholder of FairWageLaw.In January 2005, the Supreme Court ordered Heurlin suspended for two years and untilhe satisfies the requirements of standard 1.4(c)(ii) for serious misconduct unrelated to the classaction litigation. Heurlin remains on suspension. Fuller and Schrenker learned of his suspensionfrom opposing counsel, Keith Jacoby, who defended National Stores (National) in a class action brought by FairWageLaw. When Fuller confronted him about his suspension, Heurlin initiallydenied it. Fuller and Schrenker then voted to dissolve FairWageLaw and remove Heurlin as adirector. In August 2005, they also filed a petition for judicial supervision of the winding up of FairWageLaw (the dissolution action). The superior court granted the petition and assumed jurisdiction. At the time of the disciplinary hearing below, the dissolution of FairWageLaw hadnot been resolved.
Unless otherwise noted, all further references to “rule(s)” are to the Rules of Procedureof the State Bar, and all further references to “standard(s)” are to title IV of the rules, Standardsfor Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.-2-