Court Opinion

ID: 9537998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:22.401679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:17.079214
License: Public Domain

*918LUCAS, C. J.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion fails to accord the review department’s recommendation the great weight it deserves. (See In reKreamer (1975) 14 Cal.3d 524, 532, fn. 5 [121 Cal.Rptr. 600, 535 P.2d 728].) Indeed, this principle of deference is evident in the very case the majority cites to support its reduction of the recommended actual suspension. As the majority notes, in Wren v. State Bar (1983) 34 Cal.3d 81, 90 [192 Cal.Rptr. 743, 665 P.2d 515], we imposed only a 45-day actual suspension; however, in that case the review department recommended only 45 days, and we deferred to the department by adopting this recommendation.
In the present case, petitioner’s misconduct is well documented. First, he intentionally deceived Garrett. Although the majority suggests petitioner was motivated solely by a desire to make Garrett whole, this same goal could have been accomplished if petitioner had confessed his negligence and negotiated a settlement with Garrett. The majority evidently does not consider saving one’s professional reputation and preventing a possible malpractice action as matters constituting personal enrichment. I would disagree. Furthermore, the facts of the Rivera matter indicate that petitioner’s misconduct is not isolated. His neglect and failure to respond to Rivera occurred over a six-year period.
I would order petitioner be actually suspended for 90 days in accordance with the review department’s recommendation.
Eagleson, J., and Kennard, J., concurred.