A Los Angeles attorney specializing in criminal appeals faces 18 disciplinary charges after the California State Bar accused him of misleading inmates and their families about their chances of resentencing relief under a state law.
The State Bar filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges on Aug. 26 against attorney Aaron Spolin that alleges Spolin charged inmates in Los Angeles and Orange counties tens of thousands of dollars to submit resentencing requests to the counties’ district attorneys under the terms of Assembly Bill 2942, which took effect in 2018.
The law allows courts to give a lesser sentence to an inmate based on the recommendation of the district attorney in the county where the sentencing occurred. Previously, courts could only alter inmate sentences based on recommendations of state prison or jail administrators or the Board of Parole Hearings.
“Spolin had also been advised by both the Los Angeles and Orange County district attorneys that resentencing requests submitted on behalf of inmates would not result in any action on their part,” a State Bar news release states.
In February 2021, the L.A. district attorney’s website indicated that the office would only consider resentencing cases involving inmates age 50 or older with non-serious or nonviolent felonies, with sentences of two decades or more and with 10 years of time served. The office said it also would not consider sex offenders and those with certain prior convictions.
Spolin received nine letters from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office advising him that resentencing applications were unnecessary and that “a lawyer cannot initiate or accelerate the review process for an individual case,” according to the State Bar’s filing.
Among the cases Spolin acted on was that of Karl Holmes, who was sentenced in Los Angeles to death for convictions on three murder counts with special circumstances and other offenses. Holmes’ fiancée, Ernestine Holley, hired Spolin to seek a post-conviction review for Holmes for $3,000 even though he did not meet the “priority criteria” published by the district attorney, the Notice of Disciplinary Charges states.
In addition, Holley was told she would have to pay the law firm $18,200 to pursue resentencing under AB 2942 provisions, according to the State Bar.
“Offering false hope to those in dire straits for one’s own financial gain is contrary to a lawyer’s responsibilities,” State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a prepared statement. “This principle underlies the Notice of Disciplinary Charges, which alleges that Mr. Spolin misled and withheld information from prisoners and their families to convince them to pay him for services that provided them no relief.”
Spolin’s attorney said her client would press for a quick resolution in the discipline case.
“Mr. Spolin has been fully cooperative with the State Bar and will continue to cooperate,” attorney Erin Joyce said in an email to the Southern California Record. “He looks forward to resolving this matter in the near future.”
In another case, Spolin reportedly charged an inmate’s sibling $17,700 for a review and sentencing request under AB 2942, even though the inmate had been sentenced to 160 years for violent crimes such as kidnapping and armed robbery, according to the State Bar. Such crimes fall outside the district attorney’s criteria for resentencing.
The State Bar emphasized that Spolin must be presumed innocent of the charges unless the State Bar Court finds that the lawyer misled clients by clear and convincing evidence.