Attorney Gary Douglass Grant stood before the California State Supreme Court on Thursday to argue that he shouldn't be disbarred for possessing child pornography.
Grant, 56, of Aliso Viejo, was convicted in April 2009 on one count of felony possession. Lawyers for the State Bar of California contended Grant's conduct is so morally reprehensible that he and other lawyers convicted of such a crime should be automatically disqualified from practicing law. Grant argued the crime isn't as bad as the bar says it is, because he didn't seek out two pornographic images depicting minors that were found on his computer. When he saw them, he said he deleted them.
What brought reluctance among the justices Thursday, however, is the bar's request that they rule beyond Grant's case. The bar wants a decision to assert that the crime is unacceptable for any attorneys in this state and to ensure consistency in similar cases.
“The possession of child pornography is a link in the chain,” Mark Torres-Gil, assistant general counsel for the State Bar of California, told the court Thursday morning. “The consumers of this material re-victimize the children over and over again.”
Grant, who is required to register as a sex offender, argued that there's more to his case than his conviction.
“That was just simple knowing possession of images,” Grant said to the court. “There was not intent to acquire.”
Several justices were incredulous.
“Are you trying to set aside your guilty plea?” Judge Kathryn Werdegar asked Grant. “We're supposed to ignore the plea and do what?”
After being charged by the Orange County District Attorney's Office, Grant admitted he “willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possessed images of minors under the age of 18 exhibiting their genitals for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer,” according to court documents.
Grant argued Thursday that the language of his admission was written to mimic the language of the law he violated.
Grant's name came up during a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation tracking use of child pornography websites known as Project Flicker. Grant, a former JAG lawyer who was assigned to the Judge Advocate General detachment at the Los Alamitos Army Reserve Base, was caught in the sting using military data, records with the Department of Defense show.
Authorities found more than 300,000 images of adult pornography on his computers. During that time, Grant received two unsolicited emails containing sexual depictions of minors, court records show. He said he “instantly” deleted them.
Grant was sentenced to 90 days in jail and three years' probation. He has violated the terms of his probation four times, drawing an additional 376 days in jail. The court also extended his probation to June 2014.
A probation officer said in June 2012 that a search of Grant's computer turned up a deleted browser history, access to websites showing bikini models, and a saved “Future Websites” document containing detailed information and entries related to online dating and female celebrities.
“(Grant) is not applying the strategies he learned in treatment and Sex Addicts Anonymous and is at a greater likelihood of being on the threshold of re-offending,” the officer wrote.
Initially, a hearing judge recommended Grant's disbarment. But in 2011, an independent bar review recommended Grant be suspended for two years until he showed “proof of rehabilitation.” In its review, the bar cited insufficient evidence – such as a lack of expert witnesses to discuss the pornographic images at trial, and Grant's ongoing rehabilitation – as reason for the lesser punishment.
But the bar's Office of the Chief Trial Counsel disagreed. Staff there believe Grant must be disbarred “if the high standards of the legal profession are to be maintained and the public confidence in the profession upheld,” according to a court briefing.
What appeared to give the justices pause, however, is the state's argument that any lawyer convicted of such a crime should be summarily disbarred.
“I think we all stipulate that those harms are real and we all don't condone them,” Justice Goodwin Liu said in arguments.
But Liu seemed less eager to make a judgment applying to all lawyers. He used a hypothetical situation of a 19-year-old future lawyer keeping a sexually explicit image sent from a 17-year-old girlfriend.
“It really makes me a little uneasy that I'm being asked to decide such a broad question of morality,” Liu said.
“Possession itself, which may seem on the face of it very clear, has nuances,” Werdegar added.
Torres-Gil said the key was a knowing possession – the basis for Grant's conviction.
“Registration as a sexual offender is incompatible with the practice of law,” Torres-Gil said.
A decision is expected within the next three months.