Cal Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110, provides that a "member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence." Therefore, a single instance of ineffective assistance of counsel that is not intentional or reckless cannot constitute grounds for discipline. See In re Torres (Rev. Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr 138, 149:



We have repeatedly held that negligent legal representation, even that amounting to legal malpractice, does not establish a rule 3-110(A) violation. (In the Matter of Riley (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Car Ct. Rptr 91, 113, and cases there cited.)



In sum, we reverse the hearing judges finding that respondent violated [Bus & Prof. Code] section 6068, subdivision (m) and dismiss that change with prejudice.



(Accord, In the Matter of Fonte (Review Dept 1994) 2 Cal State Bar Ct. 752, 757 [failure to respond to interrogatories when due flowed from a simple calendaring error complicated by a recent computer change held not a basis for discipline].)



In Call v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 104, the Supreme Court held that negligence of an attorney is not a proper ground for disciplinary action. The Court held that errors resulting from even gross negligence and carelessness are not listed as grounds for discipline "unless the conduct involves moral turpitude or amounts to a violation of the attorneys oath or of his duties as an attorney." (Id. At 109.) "An attorney may be disciplined for a violation of his oath to discharge his duties to the best of his ability, but mere ignorance of the law in conduct, the affairs of a client in good faith is not cause for discipline." (Id. At 110-111.)