On Wednesday, April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court of California suspended attorney Christopher Phillip Dobbins for falsely testifying to the court that he has been authorized by his client to waive the latter’s right to a preliminary hearing.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Christopher Phillip Dobbins,” with case no. s278572.

In a stipulation of facts, conclusions of law, and disposition and order approval dated January 4, 2023, it was stated that the respondent committed misconduct by falsely representing to the criminal superior court that the client had authorized him to waive the former’s right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days, even though he knew the statement was false. The respondent allegedly intended to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. Moreover, the respondent failed to exercise the client’s right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days, despite the client’s instruction to do so. Respondent also failed to keep his client reasonably informed of significant developments regarding the case.

The stipulation of facts states:

“When the respondent affirmed that Wiley had authorized the respondent to waive Wiley’s right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days of arraignment, the respondent knew that these representations were false; Wiley had never agreed to waive this right. After the April 22, 2020 hearing, the respondent failed to inform Wiley that the respondent had waived Wiley’s right to have a preliminary hearing within 60 days of arraignment. From June 2020, until September 2020, the preliminary hearing was repeatedly continued, without Wiley ever appearing in court, due to the COVID-19 Emergency Rules. On September 2, 2020, the respondent visited Wiley in jail, and Wiley terminated the respondent’s representation.”

The stipulation of facts continues:

“On August 27, 2021, in response to a State Bar investigation, the respondent submitted a declaration, under the penalty of perjury. Therein, the respondent made the following attestations: During the week of April 22, 2020, I visited Defendant Wiley at Santa Rita Jail prior to the Preliminary Hearing and again reiterated the seriousness of the witnesses’ identification and that it would be best to have the victim personally appear at the preliminary hearing so we could cross-examine her. I also stated that I was not comfortable with conducting the preliminary hearing remotely, as I had not done a preliminary hearing remotely in the past, and also stated that it was important to examine the police officers in person. Defendant Wiley understood each of these points and was in agreement with my logic and plan of action.” Based on my conversation with Defendant Wiley minutes prior, I indicated to the court that Defendant Wiley would waive time so we could have a June court date.” I did not tell Mr. Shirro [sic] about the phone call with Mr. Wiley on the morning of April 22, because I wanted Defendant Wiley to get his case back on a no-time waiver status and I felt that if I told him that Defendant Wiley had actually authorized me to waive his time, then it would slow down his case.”

The respondent is charged with misleading a court, making a misrepresentation to the superior court, making a misrepresentation to the State Bar under the penalty of perjury, failing to perform with reasonable diligence, and failing to inform a client of significant development in which according to the court deserves a discipline that includes suspension.

The Disposition states:

“The court orders that Christopher Phillip Dobbins (Respondent), State Bar Number 258002, is suspended from the practice of law in California for two years, execution of that period of suspension is stayed, and Respondent is placed on probation for two years.”

Mr. Dobbins attended the Golden Gate University School of Law. He practices in Oakland, California. He is licensed in California. His info can be found on lawyer.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.