Opinion ID: 1352678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenge to various findings

Text: As noted above, petitioner does not contest his violation of sections 6106 and 6068, subdivision (d), and former rule 7-105(1). As a predicate to his attack on the discipline imposed, however, he challenges a number of ancillary findings made by the hearing panel and adopted by the review department. He asserts these findings are unsupported by the record and are otherwise improper and that their presence in the record cast him in a false light and led the review department to affirm the hearing panel's excessive recommendation of 30 days' actual suspension. We agree with petitioner that some of the hearing panel's findings are inappropriate and unsupported by the record, and we fail to understand why the review department adopted the findings in toto, without making appropriate modifications. For example, the hearing panel (a single referee who identified himself in the panel decision as an insurance defense attorney) twice characterized petitioner's law practice as a mill operation and four times alluded to findings  unsupported in the record, and certainly inflammatory  that petitioner allowed members of his staff to forge clients' names to verifications. The State Bar concedes the latter references are unsupported by the record. The State Bar also concedes that at least one other finding is not supported by the record. In determining the appropriate discipline, we will consider only the facts as set out above in part I of this opinion.