Few lawyers ever expect to be disciplined by the California State Bar. Every lawyer, however, should become familiar with California Rule of Court Rule 9.20 (Duties of Disbarred, Resigned, or Suspended Attorneys). If a lawyer is ever disciplined and ordered by the California Supreme Court or the State Bar Court^[1] to comply with rule 9.20, the lawyer must strictly adhere to its requirements. Failure to do so may result in additional discipline, including, in certain circumstances, disbarment.

As the California Supreme Court explained in Athearn v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 38, 45, rule 9.20 serves to protect clients by providing “advance notice to existing clients of the attorney’s prospective inability to represent their interests.” (original italics.) The Court reaffirmed this principle in its 2023 correspondence explaining why it revised the standard language used in its disciplinary orders.^[2] In addition to this notice requirement, the rule imposes additional duties intended to protect clients, the courts, and the administration of justice. These duties are summarized below.

A rule 9.20 order requires the disciplined lawyer to notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co-counsel of the lawyer’s disbarment, suspension, or resignation and the lawyer’s consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of the order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(a)(1).) In the absence of co-counsel, the rule further requires the lawyer to notify the clients to seek legal advice elsewhere, “calling attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another attorney or attorneys.” (Id.)

The disciplined lawyer must also deliver to all clients being represented in pending matters any papers or other property to which the clients are entitled, or notify the clients and any co-counsel of a suitable time and place where the papers or other property may be obtained, “calling attention to any urgency for obtaining the papers or other property.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(a)(2).) In addition, rule 9.20 requires the lawyer to refund any part of fees paid that have not been earned. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(a)(3).)

The rule further requires the lawyer to notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of counsel, the adverse parties of the lawyer’s disbarment, suspension, or resignation and consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of the order. The disciplined lawyer must also file a copy of the notice with the court, agency, or tribunal where the litigation is pending. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(a)(4).)

Rule 9.20 also specifies how the required notices must be served—by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested—and requires that each notice include an address where communications may be directed to the disbarred, suspended, or resigned lawyer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(b).)

Finally, the rule requires the disciplined lawyer to file with the Clerk of the State Bar Court an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with the provisions of the order entered under the rule.

The affidavit must also specify an address where communications may be directed to the disbarred, suspended, or resigned lawyer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(c).)

A disbarred or resigned lawyer’s willful failure to comply with rule 9.20 is a ground for denying an application for reinstatement or readmission. A suspended lawyer’s willful failure to comply is cause for disbarment or suspension and for revocation of any pending probation. Such failure may also be punished as a contempt or a crime. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.20(d).)

Three Lessons from In the Matter of Mitchell

The Review Department’s published decision in In the Matter of Mitchell provides several lessons regarding rule 9.20 compliance. This article discusses three of them below. 

Lesson One: Understand When Rule 9.20 Obligations Begin

A lawyer subject to a rule 9.20 order may mistakenly believe that compliance obligations begin on the effective date of the suspension, disbarment, or resignation. However, in Athearn v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 38, 45, the California Supreme Court held that the operative date for identifying “clients being represented in pending matters” and others entitled to notice under former rule 955 (the predecessor to rule 9.20) is the filing date of the Supreme Court’s order requiring compliance, not the later effective date of the discipline. The Court explained that the rule’s purpose of protecting clients through advance notice “would be totally defeated if . . . only those clients still remaining on the effective date of suspension need receive notice at that late date . . . .” (Athearn, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 45.)

In the Matter of Mitchell (Review Dept. 2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 135 involved a rule 9.20 order that the California Supreme Court issued against Mitchell in an earlier disciplinary matter.

The Hearing Department’s decision included a footnote advising Mitchell that the operative date for identifying clients and others entitled to notice under rule 9.20 was the filing date of the Supreme Court’s order, not its later effective date. (Athearn, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 45.) 

Thus, Mitchell reinforces Athearn‘s holding that the filing date of the Supreme Court’s order is the operative date for identifying clients and others entitled to notice under rule 9.20. 

Lesson Two: Exercise Caution and Care Before Filing the Rule 9.20 Compliance Declaration

Rule 9.20(c) requires the disciplined lawyer to file an affidavit^[3] with the Clerk of the State Bar Court demonstrating full compliance with the provisions of the rule 9.20 order. The affidavit must also specify an address where communications may be directed to the disciplined lawyer.

In Mitchell, the California Supreme Court’s rule 9.20 order was filed on November 15, 2021. As previously stated, that filing date—not the later effective date of the discipline—determined which clients Mitchell was required to notify under rule 9.20(a)(1). (Mitchell, supra, 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at pp. 136–137.) At the time the order was filed, Mitchell continued to represent several clients but did not provide them with the notice required by rule 9.20(a)(1). (Ibid.)

Mitchell filed her rule 9.20 compliance declaration on January 21, 2022. In the compliance declaration, she represented that “[a]s of the date upon which the order to comply with rule 9.20 was filed,” she (1) “had no clients” and (2) “did not represent any clients in pending matters.” The compliance declaration also included an option for Mitchell to certify that she had notified all clients with matters pending on the date the rule 9.20 order was filed. Mitchell did not select that option. (Mitchell, supra, 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at p. 139.)

Mitchell illustrates that the representations contained in a rule 9.20 compliance declaration may themselves become the subject of disciplinary scrutiny.

Lesson Three: A False Rule 9.20 Compliance Declaration May Constitute Moral Turpitude

The Review Department affirmed the Hearing Department’s recommendation to disbar Mitchell. It concluded that Mitchell’s misconduct went beyond her failure to comply with rule 9.20 because she knowingly made false representations in her rule 9.20 compliance declaration. (Mitchell, supra, 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at p. 139.) Specifically, the Review Department found that “Mitchell attempted to cover up her failure to notify [existing clients] by stating on the declaration form that she had no clients and did not represent any clients in pending matters at the time the Supreme Court order was filed,” that she knew the declaration contained false information when she filed it, and that the declaration was an attempt to mislead the courts regarding her compliance. (Ibid.)

The significance of Mitchell is that the Review Department did not recommend disbarment merely because Mitchell violated rule 9.20. Instead, it recommended disbarment because it found that Mitchell knowingly filed a false rule 9.20 compliance declaration. (Mitchell, supra, 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. at p. 139.) 

In summary, Mitchell illustrates three important lessons regarding rule 9.20 compliance: the operative date for identifying clients entitled to notice is the filing date of the order, not its later effective date; the rule 9.20 compliance declaration requires the lawyer to make specific factual representations regarding compliance; and knowingly filing a false compliance declaration may constitute moral turpitude and result in additional discipline, including disbarment.

^[1]Rule 9.20(a) expressly authorizes the California Supreme Court to include rule 9.20 duties in its disciplinary orders. Rule 9.20(b) also refers to notices required by an order of the Supreme Court or the State Bar Court under rule 9.20. Rule 9.10(a) provides that the State Bar Court exercises statutory powers under Business and Professions Code sections 6101 and 6102 with respect to attorneys convicted of crimes, including the power to place attorneys on interim suspension under section 6102. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 9.20(a)–(b), 9.10(a); Bus. & Prof. Code, sections 6101, 6102.)

^[2] Letter from Jorge E. Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Supreme Court, to Hon. Richard A. Honn, Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court (May 18, 2023), p. 2. Although the language of rule 9.20(a)(1) does not include the phrases “advance notice” and “existing clients,” the Supreme Court reiterated them in its May 18, 2023 letter discussing the purpose of rule 9.20.

^[3] Rule 9.20(c) requires the disciplined lawyer to file an affidavit demonstrating compliance with the rule 9.20 order. The Mitchell opinion refers to that filing as a “rule 9.20 compliance declaration,” which is the title of the form referenced in the opinion. This article uses the terms interchangeably.