San Francisco lawyer Philip Kay will be suspended this month

High-profile San Francisco attorney PHILIP KAY [#99830] will lose his law license this month after the Supreme Court denied a writ he filed and ordered that he be suspended for three years. The suspension will take effect Aug. 13.

Kay, who is well-known for his successful sexual harassment lawsuits, including a 1994 case in which a legal secretary won a multimillion dollar jury verdict against a Baker & McKenzie attorney, also lost a federal appeal in May and a San Francisco superior court judge ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction in another suit he filed.

In December, State Bar Court Judge Lucy Armendariz recommended Kay’s suspension after finding he committed 16 acts of professional misconduct. The judge cited his “rude and disrespectful conduct” during three trials and said he made false accusations, filed frivolous motions and engaged in unrelenting bad behavior. In caustic comments about Kay’s “insolent behavior,” Armendariz wrote, “Somewhere during his overzealous advocacy, he lost it . . . Not the cases, but his integrity, professional decorum, credibility and respect of the court.”

Kay filed a 91-page lawsuit in San Francisco superior court against Armendariz, the State Bar, its board of governors and prosecutor’s office, claiming he was denied due process. He sought an injunction halting the bar from forwarding Armendariz’ suspension recommendation to the Supreme Court, but the papers already had been transmitted. Kay then asked the Superior Court to enjoin or vacate the State Bar Court decision. The Superior Court eventually said it did not have jurisdiction over bar disciplinary operations.

The federal district court refused to hear a similar case, citing lack of jurisdiction, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in May, ruling that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a lawsuit against the State Bar and calling Kay’s claims exaggerated, taken out of context or otherwise without merit.

During his trial last year, Kay, 57, said he expected to be disbarred. And although the bar sought his disbarment, Armendariz said that punishment would be too harsh because Kay did not engage in intentional deceit or commit fraud against his clients.

Nonetheless, during the trials that led to the disciplinary charges, the judge said Kay made gratuitous comments and offensive statements, was disruptive, repeatedly asked identical, almost identical or inadmissible questions despite the court’s warnings and argued with the court. He was sarcastic or snide to witnesses, the judge said, badgering, berating or yelling at them. He made personal attacks on opposing counsel, including telling one jury that the other attorney lied, was unprofessional and violated ethical duties and court orders, Armendariz said. And he made false accusations against the courts, charging the judges were biased, unfair and intellectually dishonest and they committed judicial misconduct and distorted the record.

She said Kay failed to obey court orders, maintain respect to the courts, sought to mislead the jury and committed several acts of moral turpitude. His behavior wasted court time, delayed clients’ rights to receive their judgment awards and made the operation of the justice system “more burdensome,” the judge said.

Kay engaged in similarly disruptive behavior during his bar trial, Armendariz said, and she entered his default after 11 days when he refused to take the witness stand.

Kay did not return a call seeking comment.