Opinion ID: 1441929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: mitigating evidence/appropriate discipline

Text: (6), (7) A State Bar recommendation regarding discipline is entitled to great weight, but this court must exercise its independent judgment as to appropriate discipline. ( Van Sloten v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 921, 933 [258 Cal. Rptr. 235, 771 P.2d 1323].) In doing so we bear in mind that the principal purpose of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of sanctions is to protect the public by ensuring to the extent possible that misconduct by an attorney will not recur. ( Baker v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 804, 823 [263 Cal. Rptr. 798, 781 P.2d 1344].) Evidence offered by an attorney in mitigation of misconduct must be considered in light of that purpose. [T]he circumstances in which the misconduct occurred or subsequent efforts by the attorney to correct the condition that precipitated the misconduct may demonstrate that the misconduct will not likely recur ( Baker v. State Bar, supra, 49 Cal.3d 804, 822, fn. 7) and thus are relevant to the disciplinary sanctions, if any, to be imposed. We consider the evidence here in that context. (8) Both the referee and the review department found petitioner's testimony credible, but avoided deciding whether she reasonably believed that she had authority to apply the trust moneys to her legal fees. We have concluded that any such belief would not have been reasonable. For that reason we do not consider that belief to be mitigating. However, petitioner has no prior record of discipline. Numerous witnesses, judges before whom petitioner has appeared and attorneys familiar with her practice, testified that her reputation is excellent and that she is among the best family law attorneys in the Riverside area. Attorney Beswick, who represented Mr. Red, stated in a declaration that, notwithstanding the finding of culpability here, he had never doubted petitioner's integrity. Carver Honn, the Riverside County Superior Court domestic relations department commissioner, testified that he knew the attorneys appearing in that department on a professional basis and that petitioner's reputation is among the highest. He had never heard an attorney say anything critical about petitioner. In his mind, petitioner deserved this reputation. From his discussions with petitioner, Commissioner Honn found it evident that petitioner was very seriously affected by the proceedings, expressed regret and remorse that she had become involved in a disciplinary proceeding, and in the future would ensure that there would be no misunderstanding with a client regarding a trust account. He was satisfied that the problems occurring in the Red case would not recur. Notwithstanding the findings of the referee, he believed that petitioner's culpability was unintentional, and that she had no intent to overreach. Judge John Ingro, a judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court before whom petitioner had appeared in 15 to 17 domestic relations matters, testified that petitioner's professional reputation and reputation for honesty were excellent. In his opinion, she had the highest reputation of good character. His opinion had not been changed by his review of the materials related to the Red matter. Evidence of petitioner's pro bono work in the community was received. Petitioner's present secretary, who has extensive experience in office management, testified regarding office procedures which had been implemented to prevent any recurrence of irregularity in the handling of the client trust account. Daily logs of deposits and withdrawals are kept, and statements reflecting the trust account balance and the fees due are sent to clients each month. Retainer agreements are now reduced to writing. This evidence led the referee, who found that petitioner's misconduct was the result of negligent inadvertence, to conclude that recurrence was not likely. He therefore concluded that suspension was not only unnecessary, but would unduly injure both petitioner and the public. The review department found, by contrast, that petitioner's misappropriation of community funds involved dishonesty and that petitioner had concealed her misappropriation from Ms. Red. The review department recognized the mitigating evidence, and noted that petitioner had cooperated fully with the State Bar, but concluded that the aggravating factors warranted greater discipline. Although the evidence does not support the review department's finding that petitioner acted dishonestly, it also fails to support the claim that her belief, that she was authorized to use client trust funds for the payment of fees, was reasonable. (9) Moreover, the good faith of an attorney is not a defense to a charge of misappropriation, even if no person is injured by the attorney's failure to manage trust funds in the manner designated by former rule 8-101. Discipline may be warranted even if the mismanagement was neither fraudulent nor willful. ( Guzzetta v. State Bar, supra, 43 Cal.3d 692, 976; Heavey v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 553, 558 [131 Cal. Rptr. 406, 551 P.2d 1238].) (10) Petitioner has expressed remorse that she has become involved in a disciplinary proceeding, and she has taken steps to establish office procedures which will avoid the practices that contributed to her violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Nonetheless, because supervision will serve to protect the public by ensuring that the changes she had made in her office procedures are adequate, we adopt the recommendation of the review department that petitioner serve a period of probation. [8] We conclude, however, that a one-year period of probation supervision with a thirty-day actual suspension is adequate to serve this purpose.