September 12, 2025 - The California Supreme Court ordered on Thursday that Los Angeles attorney Aaron Spolin 
(SBN 310379) be disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) announced.
The Court’s order follows a stipulation in June between Spolin and OCTC in which Spolin agreed that he should be disbarred for misconduct related to his repeated collection of unconscionable legal fees after misleading inmate clients and their families regarding the potential for resentencing relief under Assembly Bill 2942 (AB 2942). The Court also ordered that Spolin pay restitution of more than $63,000, plus interest, to eight clients or their designees.
“California attorneys are entrusted with a duty to act in the best interests of their clients,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. “By preying on incarcerated individuals and their families and charging them unconscionable fees for his own personal gain, Mr. Spolin committed egregious misconduct. His disbarment serves to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession.”
Spolin faced two Notices of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) filed by OCTC in August and November 2024 for charging inmates and their families for his preparation and submission of requests for resentencing under AB 2942 to the Los Angeles and Orange County district attorneys. Spolin failed to advise the clients that they did not meet prioritization criteria applied by the Los Angeles County District Attorney (LADA), which were published on its website, and that the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) would act only in response to requests submitted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Spolin also failed to tell his clients that he had been advised multiple times 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.
In one case, Spolin collected $14,700 from an inmate’s sister for a case review and resentencing request under AB 2942. Her brother had been sentenced to 160 years to life for violent felonies, including kidnapping and armed robbery, taking him outside the LADA’s stated criteria. Despite this, Spolin continued to advise the inmate and his sister to pursue resentencing, failing to disclose the improbability of success given Spolin’s prior receipt of multiple communications from the LADA that made clear such requests would not be considered for violent offenders.
In another case, Spolin collected $26,700 from another inmate’s sister for services including submitting a request for resentencing under AB 2942 for her brother, convicted of murder and other violent crimes. Again, Spolin failed to inform the inmate or his sister that the LADA had repeatedly advised Spolin that it would not consider such requests.
In another case, Spolin billed an inmate and his fiancée $21,700 for a case review, resentencing request under AB 2942, and request for commutation. The man had been sentenced to 41 years for violent felonies, taking him outside the LADA’s stated criteria. Despite this, Spolin continued to advise the inmate and his fiancée to pursue resentencing, failing to disclose the improbability of success given Spolin’s prior receipt of multiple communications from the LADA that made clear such requests would not be considered for violent offenders.
Spolin billed an inmate, who had been sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder, and his wife $28,500 for post-conviction legal services, including an application to the OCDA for resentencing under AB 2942. Spolin had previously received at least eight letters from the OCDA notifying him that it would act only on AB 2942 resentencing requests from the CDCR.
As a result of the earlier stipulation, Spolin was placed on involuntary inactive enrollment effective June 20, 2025, which did not allow him to practice law while waiting for today’s California Supreme Court ruling on his case.
You can search more extensive State Bar Court records and documents related to attorney discipline matters using the court’s Search for a Case feature. Input either the case number or attorney’s name (last, first middle).
Attorney discipline matters are investigated and prosecuted by the State Bar’s OCTC, acting on behalf of the public.
The State Bar Court oversees disciplinary proceedings and adjudicates charges filed by OCTC. The State Bar Court rules on whether an attorney has committed professional misconduct and may recommend that an attorney be suspended or disbarred. The State Bar Court’s recommendation is transmitted to the California Supreme Court, which determines whether to impose the recommended discipline. See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.
The State Bar of California's mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system.
Source: State Bar of California
