Opinion ID: 1175723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Foster Matter

Text: In January 1971 the Fosters paid petitioner a $350 fee to represent their son, James Dale, in connection with an attempted escape charge. On June 8, 1971, James Dale was convicted of the charge and sentenced to state prison. In January 1972 Mrs. Foster asked petitioner about the possibility for obtaining her son's release from prison and petitioner told her that he could probably arrange for a court hearing but would need more money in order to finance a trip to Tehachapi, where James Dale was confined, and to pay court costs. Accordingly, Mrs. Foster gave petitioner an additional $350 and he promised to visit James Dale the following week and to make certain that the case was set for a hearing within six weeks. Mrs. Foster did not hear from petitioner within the subsequent six-week period nor did petitioner contact James Dale. After failing to reach petitioner by telephone, Mrs. Foster and James Dale's wife went to his office to discuss the case. When petitioner returned from court, he was infuriated to find the women there and told them he didn't want us over to his office birddogging him around and he didn't want us coming in his office any more ... he didn't want to hear from us anymore and that he wanted us to get out of his office and stay out.... (1a) Petitioner's behavior in each of the matters now before us unquestionably constitutes serious misconduct. As we have repeatedly stated, willful failure to perform legal services for which an attorney has been retained in itself warrants disciplinary action, constituting a breach of the good faith and fiduciary duty owed by the attorney to his clients. ( Simmons v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 719, 729 [87 Cal. Rptr. 368, 470 P.2d 352]; Clancy v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 140, 146 [77 Cal. Rptr. 657, 454 P.2d 329].) Moreover, in cases such as the present one, when an attorney's disregard of his clients' interests is habitual ( Ridley v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 551, 560-561 [99 Cal. Rptr. 873, 493 P.2d 105]; Grove v. State Bar (1967) 66 Cal.2d 680, 683 [58 Cal. Rptr. 564, 427 P.2d 164]) or when failure to render services is combined with failure to communicate with a client and with misrepresentation, severe discipline has been imposed. ( Alkow v. State Bar (1971) 3 Cal.3d 924, 936 [92 Cal. Rptr. 278, 479 P.2d 638].) Petitioner requests that in determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed we consider his reputation in the Riverside community as an honest and ethical attorney. He offers, however, no mitigating circumstances to justify or excuse his behavior in the four matters presented here. With the exception of conceding that his conduct in the Giaque case was unjustifiable, petitioner has shown no remorse for his actions. ( In re Silverton (1975) 14 Cal.3d 517, 523 [121 Cal. Rptr. 596, 535 P.2d 724].) Furthermore, this concession itself stands in direct contradiction to petitioner's testimony before the local committee, that he had failed to take action on Mr. Giaque's behalf because he was not provided with an adequate list of the items purportedly missing, and therefore, casts considerable doubt upon his truthfulness during the entire disciplinary proceeding. (See Scofield v. State Bar (1965) 62 Cal.2d 624, 628 [43 Cal. Rptr. 825, 401 P.2d 217].) (2) Thus, although this court generally attaches great weight to the disciplinary recommendation of the board ( Silver v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 134, 147 [117 Cal. Rptr. 821, 528 P.2d 1157]), we are not averse to imposing a more severe penalty when it is warranted. ( Silver v. State Bar, supra, 13 Cal.3d 134, 147.) (1b) In view of the pattern of misconduct evidenced by petitioner's actions in the four matters now before us as well as his lack of candor in testifying before the committee (see In re Bogart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 743, 749 [108 Cal. Rptr. 815, 511 P.2d 1167]) and his general lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his actions, a period of six months' actual suspension is appropriate. Accordingly, it is ordered that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years upon conditions of probation, including actual suspension for the first six months; reimbursement to his client, Dennis, in the amount of $200 plus interest; reimbursement to his client, Foster, in the amount of $350 plus interest; and compliance with the remaining conditions of probation recommended by the disciplinary board, except that in lieu of requiring petitioner to certify in his first quarterly report to the State Bar that he has read the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct, we further order that prior to the end of petitioner's actual period of suspension or within one year of imposition of such period of suspension, he pass the Professional Responsibility Examination. (See Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [126 Cal. Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929].) It is also ordered that petitioner comply with rule 955 of the California Rules of Court and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 days respectively after the effective date of this order. This order is effective 30 days after the filing of this opinion.