As the California Supreme Court officially ordered the disbarment of Attorney Aaron Spolin, feelings of anxiety and anger revisited San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Many residents expected the court’s September 11 action; in a rare display of catharsis, a few even cheered.
News reports said the California Supreme Court’s action affirmed a no-contest plea to charges of professional misconduct in the cases of eight clients. The San Quentin News reported in January that the list extended far beyond eight. Spolin had raised the hopes for rapid release from incarceration for his clients, often against all odds. He charged exorbitant fees for services he outsourced to subcontractors whom he paid as little as $10/hour. Many of them had no license to practice law in the state.
“By preying on incarcerated individuals and their families and charging them unconscionable fees for his own personal gain, Mr. Spolin committed egregious misconduct,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona of the State Bar of California in a press release. “His disbarment serves to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession.”
The press release said Spolin faced two Notices of Disciplinary Charges filed by Office of Chief Trial Counsel in August and November 2024 for charging residents of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation system and their families for his preparation and submission of requests for resentencing to the Los Angeles and Orange County district attorneys.
Spolin failed to advise the clients that they did not meet the prioritization criteria applied by the Los Angeles County District Attorney, published on its website, and that the Orange County District Attorney would act only in response to requests directly submitted by the CDCR.
Spolin also failed to tell his clients that both district attorneys’ offices had advised multiple times that resentencing requests submitted on behalf of inmates would not result in any action on their part. Bloomberg Law said the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office told Spolin in a 2022 letter, “Please keep in mind that contacting our office to provide unsolicited information regarding a particular individual or to ask for an update is not helpful and, in fact, severely detracts from our ability to review these cases in a fair, orderly and expeditious manner.” Spolin kept up the practice, anyway, flooding both offices with petitions.
Spolin’s fees usually ran in the five-figures. A story in the January issue of San Quentin News detailed that SQRC resident Troy Varnado paid $18,500 for a commutation application and a resentencing petition. In 2022, SQRC resident Anthony Oliver paid $20,000 for the same services. SQRC resident Ferdinand Flowers paid Spolin $9,000 to $12,000 for resentencing. Spolin failed all three clients. The San Quentin News has learned that many other San Quentin residents have engaged Spolin’s services, none of them successfully.
In June, Spolin entered a no-contest plea in State Bar Court to professional misconduct acknowledging that he had offered “false hope” about their chances of reducing their sentences and had charged excessive fees. The “no-contest plea” meant that Spolin did not admit guilt, but accepted the findings of misconduct. Spolin went on involuntary inactive enrollment effective June 20, which prevented him from practicing law while awaiting the California Supreme Court ruling on his case.
The Court also ordered that Spolin pay restitution of more than $63,000, plus interest, to the eight clients or their designees listed in the suit. San Quentin News learned that a lawyer with offices in Philadelphia and New York offered to sue Spolin on behalf of CDCR residents, but attempts to speak with the lawyer have not succeeded. Repeated attempts by the San Quentin News to reach the State Bar of California have also failed. The disbarment has no effect on Spolin’s ability to practice in other states in which Spolin reportedly maintained offices.
Residents interested in reading the case should consult Lexis-Nexis and search for “Spolin on Discipline, Cal., No. S292012.”