He charged inmates thousands to seek legal relief in cases not eligible for resentencing
The California State Bar has accused Los Angeles lawyer Aaron Spolin of unethical conduct for charging inmates substantial fees to submit resentencing petitions despite knowing prosecutors were unlikely to act on them.
The ABA Journal reported that the complaint, filed on August 26, claimed that Spolin charged incarcerated clients thousands of dollars to pursue legal relief in cases that did not meet the criteria for resentencing under state law.
According to the complaint, Spolin's clients were unlikely to receive "meaningful relief" despite paying legal fees starting at US$3,000 and, in some cases, reaching as high as US$30,000. In one instance, a family paid Spolin US$28,500 for a package deal that included a case review, a resentencing petition, and a commutation request.
Spolin began marketing his resentencing services after California passed a 2018 law allowing courts to reconsider sentences based on district attorney recommendations. He targeted inmates and their families through mass mailings to prisons and online advertisements. Spolin accumulated nearly 2,000 clients, many of whom came from low-income families hoping to shorten their sentences.
Despite multiple notices from the Los Angeles and Orange County district attorney offices stating they were not accepting outside resentencing petitions, Spolin continued submitting requests. He also ignored priority guidelines that the Los Angeles district attorney later established, which favoured inmates over 50 who had served at least 10 years for nonviolent or nonserious crimes.
The ethics complaint alleged that Spolin misled his clients, charged excessive fees, failed to provide transparent communication, and did not allow his clients to make informed decisions. He is also accused of moral turpitude for misrepresenting his services.
In response to the charges, Spolin’s lawyer, Erin Joyce, said that he has cooperated fully with the state bar and is looking forward to resolving the matter. Spolin, for his part, has defended his actions, arguing that future legal reforms could eventually benefit his clients.
