Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Lawyer Not ‘Ineffective’ While ‘Suspended’ for Trust Reports
Opinion Rejects Defendant’s Claim That He Was Denied Assistance of Counsel During Trial Due to His Attorney Being Briefly Rendered Ineligible to Practice Due to Purported Violation of Rules Governing Client Accounts
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday that a trial attorney is not rendered “ineffective” due to the imposition of a “temporary suspension” of his license to practice law for purported noncompliance with the State Bar’s relatively new client trust account reporting requirements.
Justice Truc T. Do authored yesterday’s opinion, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice William Dato and Justice Jose S. Castillo, in which she declared:
“[W]e reject [the defendant’s] claim that his trial counsel was ineffective because, during part of the trial, he was temporarily suspended from the California State Bar for purported noncompliance with trust account reporting requirements.”
The new reporting requirements arose after the state high court approved California Rule of Court 9.8.5(a)(1) in October 2022, which directs “[t]he State Bar of California [to] establish and administer” a “Client Trust Account Protection Program” (“CTAPP”) that “facilitates the State Bar’s detection and deterrence of client trust accounting misconduct.”
In November 2022, the State Bar’s Board of Trustees adopted rules requiring licensees to report any client trust accounts and to certify compliance with governing regulations.
Assault With Firearm
Seeking to upend his conviction based on the State Bar action was Rodney Riggs Jr., who was convicted in 2024 of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, among other charges, relating to an August 2022 incident in which he was accused of shooting at an all-terrain vehicle on which his on-again-off-again girlfriend was riding with another man.
Riggs’ attorney, Eugene Brody Stillman, was rendered ineligible to practice law from July 2 through July 14, 2024 for a purported failure to comply with CTAPP reporting requirements. Stillman did not learn of the action until July 11, when he began attempting to resolve the issue with the licensing body based on assertions that he had timely complied with applicable rules.
The trial in Riggs’ case began in June 2024 and was ongoing when Stillman received notice of the temporary change to his licensing status. Closing arguments were held on July 9, and the jury reached a verdict the following day; sentencing was set for Aug. 2.
On July 31, Stillman informed the court of the State Bar action in a motion requesting to continue the sentencing hearing. Riverside Superior Court Judge Frederick Dickerson III granted the extension and sentenced Riggs to 11 years in prison on the assault charges on September 6, 2024.
Denied Effective Assistance
As to Riggs’ assertion that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because, at the time of the jury instructions, closing arguments, and verdicts, his trial attorney was temporarily rendered ineligible to practice law, Do wrote:
“[W]e reject this claim and conclude an attorney’s temporary suspension from the bar for purported trust account reporting violations does not in itself result in the deprivation of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Consequently, Riggs, who relies only on his counsel’s suspension, has not established the absence of effective assistance of counsel.”
The jurist likened the “temporary suspension” to the facts at issue in the 1996 California Supreme Court decision in People v. Ngo, in which the court found that a defendant’s conviction had been wrongly reversed due to the defense attorney having been placed on inactive status for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education (“MCLE”) requirements.
In the Ngo opinion, the high court declared that “MCLE is a creature of statute and court rule” and that “the inference is unwarranted that…noncompliance with those requirements necessarily establishes an attorney’s professional incompetence or constitutionally deficient performance in representation following enrollment on inactive status.”
Analogous Circumstances
Finding CTAPP compliance to be analogous to the continuing education context, Do remarked:
“Like the MCLE requirement, the CTAPP ‘is a creature of statute and court rule.’….Like the MCLE requirement, involuntary enrollment on inactive status occurs automatically without a hearing….Inactive status could result from mere ‘clerical oversight.’…And, as with MCLE compliance, ‘it [is] illogical to conclude that a California attorney, presumptively competent’ in prior years ‘becomes incompetent…merely by virtue of…noncompliance’ with the CTAPP requirements.”
She added:
“Riggs has not established he was deprived of counsel. His attorney briefly faced an administrative suspension based on purported noncompliance with a court rule….Ngo left open the possibility that noncompliance may be relevant when determining whether a defendant has received assistance of counsel….But Riggs relies on the mere fact of suspension to establish a constitutional violation without presenting any additional facts related to the competence of his attorney. Ngo makes clear that an attorney’s suspension does not per se establish incompetence or a constitutional violation….Therefore, Riggs has not established deprivation of effective assistance of counsel.”
The case is People v. Riggs, D085449.
According to State Bar records, Stillman stipulated to a private reproval in 2005 over an incident in which he “effectively abandoned” two clients who had hired him to represent them in a personal injury matter. According to the stipulation, the incident was caused by his suffering the sudden onset of a debilitating medical condition.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company