Court Opinion

ID: 9534192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:37:27.639224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:32.494285
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I agree with the majority’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but I must dissent from the recommended discipline. While it is true that wilful misappropriation of a client’s funds is a serious breach of professional ethics and merits severe discipline, I conclude that the compelling mitigating circumstances in this case justify a less severe sanction than disbarment.
The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances. (Schneider v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 784, 798 [239 Cal.Rptr. 111, 739 P.2d 1279].) In this case, however, the majority focus only on the extent of petitioner’s misappropriation and do not adequately consider the mitigating circumstances that, in my opinion, militate against disbarment.
Petitioner has practiced law in this state for more than 13 years and has no prior record of discipline. We may properly consider this fact in mitigation. (Waysman v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 452, 457 [224 Cal.Rptr. 101, 714 P.2d 1239].) Moreover, petitioner’s transgressions were confined to the relatively short period of time between 1980 and 1981, and these incidents appear to be aberrant behavior traceable to the personal and professional difficulties petitioner experienced during that period. (See Chefsky v. State Bar (1984) 36 Cal.3d 116, 132 [202 Cal.Rptr. 349, 680 P.2d 82].) In the intervening period since these complaints arose, petitioner has continued his practice without suffering additional charges of unethical conduct, thus demonstrating an ability to adhere to acceptable standards of professional behavior. This, too, is a mitigating factor. (Cain v. State Bar (1978) 21 Cal.3d 523, 526 [146 Cal.Rptr. 737, 579 P.2d 1053].) Both the hearing panel and the review department recognized these factors in mitigation, but the majority inexplicably fail to consider them.
In addition, these disciplinary proceedings have been hanging over petitioner’s head for six and one-half years. He has faced three different hearing panels and has twice appeared before this court. Such a delay in adjudicating the complaints may be considered in determining the appropriate disci*619pline provided petitioner demonstrates that he has been prejudiced by the delay. (Vaughn v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 698, 703 [108 Cal.Rptr. 806, 511 P.2d 1158].) As will appear, petitioner has made that showing.
As the majority concede (ante, p. 614), the hearing panel and review department that previously considered the identical conduct now before us recommended much less severe discipline than the majority impose today. Unfortunately for petitioner, the transcripts of his original proceeding were lost and he had to undergo a de novo hearing. As a result of the de novo hearing, three events combined to seriously prejudice him.
First, petitioner contends that because his counsel of choice was unavoidably unavailable for his de novo hearing, he was not able to present evidence from his psychiatrist to establish that he suffered from various psychiatric and medical problems. In his previous hearing before the panel, petitioner presented such testimony and the referee found in mitigation the fact that petitioner was at that time a paranoid schizophrenic. No such evidence was available in the de novo hearing, and petitioner was thus prejudiced by his inability to offer relevant mitigating evidence.
Second, the financial and emotional strain of these prolonged proceedings made it difficult for petitioner to maintain a full-time legal practice. As a result, petitioner testified, he has been unable to make restitution to the Chubbses or the medical providers, a failure which both the State Bar and the majority consider in aggravation of his conduct.
Finally, and in my mind most important, the attitude of the State Bar toward disciplinary proceedings has changed in the period between petitioner’s two hearings. When the hearing panel first considered his case, the recommended discipline of five years’ probation with ninety days’ actual suspension was similar to the discipline we imposed in Chefsky v. State Bar, supra, 36 Cal.3d 116 (misappropriation, abandoning clients in five separate matters, false testimony before the State Bar —three years’ probation, thirty days’ actual suspension). However at petitioner’s de novo hearing the hearing examiner argued that the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div. V) should control in this case. Standard 2.2, which the majority apply in recommending disbarment (ante, p. 617), now provides that an attorney shall be disbarred for wilful misappropriation of a client’s funds, absent compelling mitigating circumstances. Yet these standards became effective only on January 1, 1986. (Segal v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1077, 1087 [245 Cal.Rptr. 404, 751 P.2d 463].) It is unfair to judge petitioner’s conduct under these standards, because his original hearing occurred long before the standards were adopted.
*620Like the majority I am concerned by the substantial sum of money that petitioner misappropriated. Yet in imposing discipline our primary task is not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, the legal profession and the courts. (In re Nadrich (1988) 44 Cal.3d 271, 276 [243 Cal.Rptr. 218, 747 P.2d 1146].) I believe a period of actual suspension, combined with five years’ monitored probation and a requirement for complete restitution, would better serve this end without unduly punishing petitioner. (See Frazer v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 564 [238 Cal.Rptr. 54, 737 P.2d 1338] [fraudulently obtaining $24,860 does not merit disbarment in light of attorney’s financial difficulties, mental health problems and the dissolution of his law practice].) Such discipline is more appropriate because it recognizes the harm to petitioner’s clients while at the same time taking account of the unique mitigating circumstances present in this case.
Broussard, L, concurred.