Bar’s Refusal to Let Man Practice Law Voided

SAN FRANCISCO —  The state Supreme Court, overturning an action by the State Bar, held Thursday that a former California Highway Patrol officer accused of lacking “good moral character” must be allowed to practice law.

In an unusual move, the justices unanimously rejected what they said was a “weak case” presented by the Bar in denying Charles Anthony Pacheco admission to practice for seven years after he passed the Bar examination.

The court found that the 44-year-old Pacheco, now a licensed private investigator in Sacramento, had successfully “rehabilitated” himself since a series of incidents that took place over a decade ago.

The former officer was neither accused nor convicted of a crime. The court noted that the “most serious” of the Bar’s findings was that Pacheco in 1974 had advised a witness in a murder case on how to avoid being served with a subpoena.

Accusations Made

He was also accused by the Bar of, among other things, playing secretly recorded interrogations of criminal suspects for his two former wives and with having been sexually involved with a minor girl he met as an officer before resigning from the CHP in 1972.

Pacheco was graduated from Lincoln Law School in Sacramento in 1978 and passed the Bar examination two years later. But the Bar, after an investigation, refused in 1982 to allow him to practice on moral grounds. The state Supreme Court, which has final authority in Bar cases, then declined to hear his subsequent petition for review.

In 1984, Pacheco reapplied for admission to practice law, but two years later, the Bar again registered its disapproval on the grounds of character, citing the incidents that had taken place before, along with a 1984 incident that occurred while Pacheco was working as a private investigator.

Fled With Child

The Bar alleged that in the latest incident, Pacheco participated in the forcible, but legal, removal of a child from the custody of the mother who had fled with the child in defiance of a court order. The woman said that in a struggle involving the father, Pacheco and other people, Pacheco had held her arm behind her, forcing her to surrender the child. Pacheco testified that only the child’s father, for whose attorney he was working, had touched the mother.

Again, Pacheco brought his case to the court, and this time, the justices agreed to review the matter.

In a 28-page, unsigned opinion, the justices noted that Pacheco had drawn support from 19 lawyers and judges who wrote letters to the Bar in his behalf.

The 1984 child custody incident was “ethically suspect,” the court said, but was the only significant allegation to be made against him in recent years.

‘Rehash’ of Actions

The court said that the Bar, in rejecting Pacheco’s reapplication to practice, had spent too little time on Pacheco’s claims of rehabilitation and too much time in a “rehash” of his actions from a decade ago, raising “significant doubts” about the fairness of its proceedings.

His record now indicates that he has established himself “as an esteemed member of his community and of his profession,” and his conduct now stands “in marked contrast” to previous misdeeds, the court said.

Thus he has satisfied the “good moral character” requirement for admission to the Bar, it said.

Pacheco’s attorney, Frank D. Winston of San Francisco, said his client was elated over the court’s ruling.

“Very rarely does the Supreme Court even grant a hearing when an application for admission has been turned down by the State Bar,” winston said. “It’s been a long haul.”

In other actions Thursday, the court:

- Let stand an appeal court ruling last June that upheld the constitutionality of a 1985 state law requiring that sentences of at least 48 hours in jail be imposed on convicted drunk drivers who had refused to take sobriety tests when arrested.

- Agreed to review the case of a convicted rapist and kidnaper who alleged that his sentence was improperly increased from seven to 10 years in prison without a specific finding that the kidnaping took place for the purpose of committing rape. The case, involving a test of a 1983 law lengthening sentences in rape-related kidnapings, was brought by James Hernandez, convicted in an assault on a Big Pine woman in 1985.