Opinion ID: 1184351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The discipline recommendation.

Text: Petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in June 1957, and, according to his testimony, he engages primarily in a criminal law practice. No prior disciplinary proceedings against petitioner appear on the record. He asks us to review the disbarment recommendation of the disciplinary board. (9) An attorney's knowing submission of false claims to an insurance company involves an act of dishonesty and moral turpitude within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 6106 and is therefore a cause for discipline. In Scofield v. State Bar (1965) 62 Cal.2d 624 [43 Cal. Rptr. 825, 401 P.2d 217], the findings showed that Scofield submitted duplicate claims for special damages to insurance companies without revealing the duplication. We reduced the six months recommended suspension to 30 days. In In re Benson (1964) Bar Misc. 2693, an attorney convicted of conspiracy (Pen. Code, § 182, subds. 1 and 4) and insurance fraud (Ins. Code, § 556) was suspended for five years. Thus, the discipline recommended in the instant case is significantly greater than has been imposed in past cases of insurance fraud. (10) In addition to the insurance fraud charges, petitioner's conduct towards his clients was marked by numerous deviations from established standards; most serious was his failure to consult with Martinez or Paramo prior to concluding the settlement negotiations with Allstate. In Bodisco v. State Bar, supra, 58 Cal.2d 495, we considered the appropriate discipline for an attorney whose conduct paralleled petitioner's in certain regards. Bodisco concluded a settlement agreement and executed documents on behalf of his client; his negotiated settlement was less than the amount which the client had orally authorized. The discipline ordered was two years suspension and was based, in part, on Bodisco's commingling of funds and a prior disciplinary record (public reprimand). The findings against petitioner evidence serious acts of misconduct which clearly warrant the imposition of a substantial sanction. Petitioner introduced no evidence in mitigation and did not call witnesses to indicate his performance or reputation as an attorney. [10] Several factors, however, argue for imposition of a less severe discipline than the recommended disbarment. In petitioner's favor is the absence of a prior disciplinary record and the apparent willingness of the local administrative committee to believe that a one-year suspension would prevent reoccurrence of misconduct. In addition, in recommending the ultimate sanction of disbarment, the disciplinary board may have weighed heavily the finding that petitioner submitted false information at the hearing. This finding tends to indicate continuing misconduct and the failure of petitioner to appreciate the importance of the charges against him. Because we have concluded that the record does not support the conclusion that petitioner submitted the false evidence or participated in the falsification of the X-ray log, we believe the harsh recommendation of disbarment is not warranted. We conclude that petitioner's discipline should be probationary suspension for five years, with two years actual suspension. It is ordered that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. Execution of such suspension is stayed for the period of five years, during which period he is placed on probation upon the following conditions: that he is suspended for the first two years and that, within 30 days after the effective date of this order, he shall perform the acts specified in rule 955, subdivision (a), California Rules of Court, and that within 60 days after the effective date of this order petitioner shall file with the clerk of this court, the affidavit provided for in subdivision (c) of the foregoing rule. This order is effective 30 days after the filing of this opinion.