Wait... this is a debate? Disbarment "SHOULD BE IMPOSED"? Attorney Howard was CONVICTED of stabbing his girlfriend with a knife with INTENT. He cut her colon requiring 2 major surgeries.
California Attorney Edwin Jeffrey Howard: Unabated
Disbarment on default should be imposed for an attorney's conviction, according to the report of the California State Bar Court Hearing Department
Respondent was convicted of one felony Violation of Penal Code section 273.5(a) (corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent). Enhancements to this conviction included Respondent’s use of a deadly weapon (Penal Code section 12022(b)(1)) and infliction of great bodily injury (Penal Code section 12022.7(e)).
The court finds that the facts and circumstances surrounding Respondent’s conviction involve moral tuxpitude. On or about December 2, 2011, Respondent and his girlfriend of ten years had several arguments culminating with Respondent stabbing her with a knife in the stomach, cutting her colon. As a result, Respondent’s girlfriend underwent two surgeries and spent five days in the hospital.
Northern California Record reported on the recommendation.
He had proper notice
now-Senior Attorney Elizabeth Stine located Respondent at the Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California. Ms. Stine communicated with Respondent by mail. Respondent requested ~ through a letter to Ms. Stine — that the present proceedings be continued. Ms. Stine replied to Respondent’s letter and advised him that he needed to file a response to the notice of hearing on conviction.
Respondent failed to file a response to the notice of hearing on conviction. On July 18, 2014, the State Bar properly filed and served a motion for entry of Respondent’s default. Respondent did not file a response to the motion; however, due to his incarceration, this court abated these proceedings on August 29, 2014. This matter remained in abatement for the next three years.
On July 27, 2017, Ms. Stine discovered that Respondent was no longer incarcerated. Thereafter, Ms. Stine attempted to locate and communicate with Respondent by: (1) conducting a LexisNexis people search; and (2) calling and leaving a Voicemail for Respondent at a possible alternative telephone number identified through the LexisNexis search. Despite these efforts, Respondent never filed a response to the notice of hearing on conviction. On October 30, 2017, this matter was unabated.
Source: Professional Legal Blog