Opinion ID: 1427055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: psychological disability

Text: (12a) For the first time before this court, petitioner asserts that he suffers a severe anxiety adjustment syndrome which both explains his misconduct and hampered his defense. He asks leave to submit a psychologist's report on his condition. While we undertake independent review of the State Bar Court's factual findings ( Marcus v. State Bar (1980) 27 Cal.3d 199, 201 [165 Cal. Rptr. 121, 611 P.2d 462]), we do not consider evidence never presented in the disciplinary proceedings below. Nor, absent an error which prevented its introduction (see discussion, ante ), will we remand for consideration of the new evidence. (Cf., Yokozeki v. State Bar, supra, 11 Cal.3d 436, 447.) (13) In any event, psychological disability, while it may ameliorate the moral culpability of an attorney's misconduct, does not immunize him from the disciplinary measures necessary to protect the public. (E.g., Snyder v. State Bar (1976) 18 Cal.3d 286, 293 [133 Cal. Rptr. 864, 555 P.2d 1104]; Grove v. State Bar, supra, 66 Cal.2d 680, 685.) (12b) Considering the overwhelming evidence that petitioner committed the misconduct charged, and in view of the light discipline proposed (see discussion, post ), we cannot conclude that evaluation of petitioner's psychological problems would lead to a different result.