Opinion ID: 1309329
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Letter From Petitioner's Psychiatrist

Text: (12) Petitioner attached to his brief before this court a letter from his psychiatrist, in which the psychiatrist states, [petitioner] has advised me that he would be willing to cooperate with the State Bar during his probation, and declares that he is confident that the public will be protected since, on his own, [petitioner] has been involved in therapy and has been stabilized on Lithium since October 1981. Petitioner submits the letter to support his contention that the recommended discipline is excessive. The letter was not presented in the proceedings below, however, and we therefore conclude it is not properly before us for this purpose. [6] This court has on occasion considered matters extrinsic to the record which are relevant to an attorney's fitness to practice law. [Citations.] However, the strong preference is for such matters to be submitted to the hearing panel, which is better suited to determine what weight to give them. This preference is particularly strong where, as here, the extrinsic evidence consists of opinions about petitioner's mental attitude, and is based largely on petitioner's own out-of-court statements. Such evidence is virtually impossible to evaluate in the absence of cross-examination. ( In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163, 171 [207 Cal. Rptr. 543, 689 P.2d 115], fn. omitted, italics added; but see, e.g., Doyle v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 973, 980, fn. 2 [126 Cal. Rptr. 801, 544 P.2d 937] [although not part of record in proceedings below, psychiatrist's declaration stating petitioner would benefit from planned psychotherapy may be considered in determining petitioner's fitness to practice.].) We also noted in Possino that in any event the new evidence would not compel a lesser discipline than that recommended. (37 Cal.3d at p. 171.) In Rosenthal (M.B.), supra, 43 Cal.3d 658, we discussed evidence similar to the letter submitted by petitioner, which also was not included in the record below, and was offered by the attorney to support his contention that the recommended discipline was too severe. There, the attorney asked us to consider psychiatric evaluations and letters which he said demonstrated his efforts at rehabilitation. We stated, In general, this court does not consider evidence which was not presented to the State Bar during its review process. ( Id., at p. 663.) Following Possino, supra, 37 Cal.3d 163, we concluded, Petitioner's documents are inherently unreliable.... The letters and reports merely reflect personal beliefs in petitioner's continued recovery, and are based exclusively upon conversations or interviews with him. (43 Cal.3d 658, 663.) In Rosenthal, as in Possino, we also noted that in any event the new evidence would not compel a lesser discipline. ( Ibid. ) Thus, we generally do not consider evidence outside the record when determining the appropriate discipline, especially if the extrinsic evidence consists of statements of opinions about the petitioner's mental attitude. Following Rosenthal (M.B.), supra, 43 Cal.3d 658, and Possino, supra, 37 Cal.3d 163, we will not consider petitioner's letter here. Even if we were to consider it, however, it would not significantly affect our evaluation of the appropriate discipline.