Opinion ID: 1134641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Severity of the Disciplinary Action

Text: (9) Petitioner contends that the six-month actual suspension is an excessive punishment in view of the circumstances. He argues that his precarious financial position during the incidents coupled with his subsequent repayment of the amounts owed should be looked upon by this court as mitigating factors. We must disagree. As we pointed out above, the fact that petitioner during this period encountered serious financial difficulties indicates that he should have been more, not less careful with the handling of his clients' funds. [6] His subsequent repayment of the monies, standing alone, might be a mitigating factor. But the fact that they were repaid only a week before the disciplinary hearing detracts from the petitioner's plea. We find the Disciplinary Board's recommendation appropriate. It is therefore ordered that the petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for one year on conditions of probation, including an actual suspension of six months. In addition, petitioner must pass the Professional Responsibility Examination within one year (see Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, fn. 8 [126 Cal. Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929]) and comply with California Rules of Court, rule 955 within thirty days after the effective date of this order.