Patrick Earl Marshall was admitted to the California Bar 27th June 1975, but has since been disbarred. Patrick graduated from Santa Clara University SOL.

Lawyer Information

NamePatrick Earl Marshall
First Admitted27 June 1975 (48 years, 10 months ago)
StatusDisbarred
Bar Number64359

Contact

Phone Number831-207-9743
Fax Number831-637-9232

Schools

Law SchoolSanta Clara University SOL (Santa Clara CA)
Undergraduate SchoolCalifornia St University Hayward (Hayward CA)

Address

Current AddressPO Box 2437
Hollister, CA 95024-2437
Map

History

1 January 2011Disbarred (13 years, 3 months ago)
Disbarment 01-O-01459
18 June 2010Not eligible to practice law in CA (13 years, 10 months ago)
Ordered inactive 01-O-01458
11 May 2004Disciplinary charges filed in State Bar Court 01-O-01459 (19 years, 11 months ago)
27 June 1975Admitted to the State Bar of California (48 years, 10 months ago)

Discipline Summaries

January 1, 2011

PATRICK EARL MARSHALL [#64359], 64, of Hollister was disbarred Jan. 1, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court found that Marshall committed four acts of misconduct, including acts of moral turpitude and having inappropriate sexual relations with two incarcerated, indigent female clients while acting as their public defender.

Over the opposition of the State Bar, Marshall was admitted to its Alternative Discipline Program in 2005 and completed the program about two years later. Although a hearing judge recommended a one-year stayed suspension and two years of probation, the bar appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the bar court.

Marshall was the contract public defender for San Benito County from July 1, 1993, through February 7, 2001. While representing a convicted felon facing possible life imprisonment, he had sexual relations with his client three times while she was incarcerated in the county jail. Although he said the sexual relations were consensual and questioned the meaning of undue influence, the bar court characterized his arguments as “dismal . . . particularly in light of (his) many years of therapy with” organizations that include a Sexaholics Anonymous Twelve Step program.

During a visit with a second criminal client he represented, Marshall hugged her and patted her buttocks without her consent.

The bar court found that in both matters, Marshall committed acts of moral turpitude and used undue influence in having sexual relations with incarcerated clients.

In mitigation, Marshall practiced law for 20 years without a discipline record and he participated in the Lawyer Assistance Program and the Alternative Discipline Program. However, in recommending Marshall’s disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote, “Having improper sexual relations with a client breaches the basic notions of trust and integrity and endangers public confidence in the legal profession, irrespective of its duration . . . . (Marshall's) moral deficiency is still profound.”

June 18, 2010

Hollister attorney who had sex with clients faces disbarment

Following arguments from the State Bar prosecutor’s office that a stayed suspension was too lenient for Hollister lawyer PATRICK EARL MARSHALL – who had sexual relations with two incarcerated clients when he was a contract public defender – a State Bar Court judge has recommended disbarment.

Marshall [#64359], 63, was placed on involuntary inactive enrollment June 18 pending approval by the California Supreme Court of the disbarment recommendation.

In May 2004, Marshall was charged by the Chief Trial Counsel’s Office with engaging in sexual misconduct with two female clients who were incarcerated in San Benito County at the time. Over the objections of bar prosecutors, Marshall was admitted to the Alternative Discipline Program for attorneys with substance abuse or mental health problems. Marshall entered into an agreement to assist in his recovery process from depression disorder, sexual disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder.

When he completed the program in 2007, the State Bar Court imposed a one-year stayed suspension and two years of probation for his misconduct. The Chief Trial Counsel’s office appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which, in 2009, ordered the bar court to conduct further hearings.

“Despite (Marshall’s) successful completion of the ADP and LAP (Lawyer Assistance Program) and years of therapy,” Judge Lucy Armendariz wrote in her disbarment decision, Marshall, who argued that the sex was consensual, “has not fully grasped the egregiousness of his offenses and the extreme harm he had caused the administration of justice and integrity of the legal profession.” Armendariz noted that Marshall went so far as to argue that a mitigating factor should be that his misconduct accounted for no more than “an hour’s total duration.”

“Violation of one’s professional and ethical duties is not measured by the length of time,” Armendariz wrote. “Having improper sexual relations with a client breaches the basic notions of trust and integrity and endangers public confidence in the legal profession, irrespective of its duration … His persistent claims that the sexual relations were consensual and that [one woman] never told him to stop are indeed troubling and adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law.” The judge referred to an Iowa Supreme Court decision which stated that “‘the professional relationship renders it impossible for the vulnerable layperson to be considered ‘consenting.’”

Marshall represented an indigent woman who was incarcerated in the San Benito County jail and was facing life imprisonment. The woman was a drug addict, abandoned by her family, and, according to Armendariz, “was afraid to refuse (Marshall’s) sexual advances.” The client said, “I believed that (Marshall) had my life in his hands. I believed that he had the power whether I ever got a date to go home or stayed forever. He was my only hope.”

Marshall visited the woman on several occasions and had sexual relations with her at least three times.

He represented another woman and during a visit at the same jail, he hugged her and “patted her buttocks without her consent.”

Professional Rule of Conduct 3-120, which governs sexual relations between attorneys and their clients, is intended to prohibit sexual exploitation by a lawyer in the course of a professional relationship. Armendariz found that Marshall violated the rule twice and he committed acts of moral turpitude against both clients.

In mitigation, he practiced law for 20 years without any discipline prior to the misconduct.