Colangelo?v.?State?Bar?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1255?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?181;?812?P.2d?200
[No.?S015829.?Jul?15,?1991.]JAY?P.?COLANGELO,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?STATE?BAR?OF?CALIFORNIA,?Respondent.
(Opinion?by?The?Court.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
Tom?Low?for?Petitioner.
Diane?C.?Yu,?Richard?J.?Zanassi?and?Gregory?B.?Sloan?for?Respondent.?[53?Cal.3d?1258] OPINION
THE?COURT.
We?review?the?recommendation?of?the?Hearing?Department?of?the?State?Bar?Court?that?petitioner,?Jay?P.?Colangelo?(petitioner),?be?suspended?from?the?practice?of?law?for?one?year?upon?certain?conditions?and?that?the?suspension?be?stayed,?with?probation?of?eighteen?months?but?no?period?of?actual?suspension.?Petitioner?requests?that?we?either?review?the?decision?of?the?State?Bar?Court?or?that?we?remand?this?matter?to?the?State?Bar?Court?for?further?proceedings.?We?conclude?that?petitioner?is?not?entitled?to?further?proceedings?and?adopt?the?disciplinary?sanctions?recommended?by?the?hearing?department.
- Procedural?History?and?Facts
Petitioner?was?admitted?to?the?practice?of?law?in?California?in?1981.?The?record?indicates?no?prior?discipline.?On?May?10,?1989,?a?”Notice?to?Show?Cause”?was?filed?with?the?State?Bar?Court,?alleging?that?petitioner?had?committed?various?disciplinary?violations.?The?notice?was?properly?served?upon?petitioner?on?May?12,?1989,?by?certified?mail,?and?required?that?petitioner?respond?to?the?notice?within?20?days?of?the?service?of?the?notice.?(Rule?552,?Transitional?Rules?Proc.?of?State?Bar?of?Cal.)?On?June?5,?1989,?a?”Notice?of?Time?and?Place?of?Mandatory?Settlement?Conference”?was?filed?at?the?State?Bar?Court?and?was?served?upon?petitioner.?This?notice?advised?petitioner?that?a?settlement?conference?had?been?scheduled?for?August?28,?1989.?In?the?absence?of?petitioner’s?response?to?the?first?notice,?the?State?Bar?filed?a?”Notice?of?Application?to?Enter?Default”?on?June?13,?1989,?which?advised?petitioner?that?the?State?Bar?would?seek?his?default?unless?he?filed?an?answer?to?the?notice?to?show?cause?by?July?3,?1989.?On?July?6,?1989,?a?”Notice?of?Entry?of?Default”?was?filed?with?the?State?Bar?Court?and?served?upon?petitioner.
The?next?day,?July?7,?1989,?the?State?Bar?received?an?”Answer?to?the?Notice?to?Show?Cause”?from?petitioner.?The?State?Bar?Court?did?not?file?this?document?because?a?default?had?already?been?entered?and?petitioner?had?not?complied?with?the?procedural?requirements?to?set?aside?his?default.?The?answer?was?returned?to?petitioner?with?reference?to?the?default?procedures?and?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar.?The?default?hearing?was?held?on?September?5,?1989?(Goldhammer,?hg.?judge),?but?petitioner?did?not?appear,?either?in?person?or?through?counsel.?At?the?hearing?evidence?was?presented?in?the?following?matters:
The?Hubbard?Matter
In?April?1986,?Monica?Hubbard?hired?petitioner,?through?Drivers’?Defense?Clinic?(Drivers),?to?represent?her?after?she?was?charged?with?driving?[53?Cal.3d?1259]?under?the?influence?of?alcohol.?Petitioner?received?a?$175?advance?payable?to?Drivers,?for?which?he?negotiated?a?guilty?plea?entered?in?absentia?in?May?1986.?Despite?repeated?requests?from?Hubbard,?petitioner?never?sent?Hubbard?the?”paperwork”?from?the?plea?bargain,?including?information?on?the?sheriff’s?work?program?that?Hubbard?was?required?to?attend.
Hubbard?was?arrested?on?December?2,?1986,?for?failure?to?appear?in?the?sheriff’s?work?program.?Petitioner?obtained?Hubbard’s?release?the?following?day.?He?did?not?charge?her?for?these?additional?services.?Hubbard?continued?to?call?petitioner?for?two?months?on?a?daily?basis,?seeking?the?”paperwork”?from?the?plea?bargain.?She?never?received?the?copies?of?the?court?orders?from?petitioner,?but?eventually?served?her?sentence?and?enrolled?in?a?sheriff’s?work?program?on?her?own.
Hubbard?did?not?testify?at?the?default?hearing?on?September?5,?1989;?instead,?the?State?Bar?Court?relied?upon?her?declaration?and?associated?exhibits.?The?hearing?judge?expressed?confusion?as?to?exactly?what?constituted?the?”paperwork”?that?Hubbard?sought,?and?questioned?whether?petitioner?had?a?duty?to?Hubbard?after?she?entered?her?plea?in?December.?In?his?”tentative?view?as?to?culpability,”?the?hearing?judge?found?only?that?the?State?Bar?had?”established?that?[petitioner]?did?not?provide?[Hubbard]?the?paperwork,?he?should?have?done?so,?but?[the?judge?believed]?that?[the?disciplinary?violation?was]?pretty?much?limited?to?that.”?The?hearing?judge?found?petitioner’s?failure?to?send?the?documents?to?Hubbard?constituted?a?failure?to?communicate.?He?ultimately?found?that?the?State?Bar?had?not?established?that?petitioner?failed?to?refund?an?advanced?fee?by?clear?and?convincing?evidence.
The?Fields?Matter
In?June?1986,?Jerry?Fields?paid?petitioner?$500?to?file?a?criminal?appeal?on?behalf?of?his?father,?who?was?out?of?custody?on?bail.?Petitioner?told?Fields?at?that?time?that?he?would?postpone?filing?until?the?last?minute?to?extend?the?elder?Fields’s?time?out?of?custody.?Petitioner?occasionally?returned?Fields’s?calls,?assuring?Fields?that?all?documents?were?being?timely?filed.
By?letter?dated?October?24,?1986,?petitioner?was?notified?by?the?court?that?the?opening?brief?in?People?v.?Fields?was?overdue?and?that?the?appeal?would?be?dismissed?if?the?brief?was?not?received?by?the?court?within?30?days.?Petitioner?requested?and?received?an?extension?of?time?to?file?the?opening?brief?until?December?2,?1986.?He?never?filed?the?brief,?however.?In?February?1987,?Fields’s?father?received?notice?that?he?was?to?appear?in?court?regarding?a?remittitur?that?had?been?issued.?Petitioner?advised?Fields?that?his?[53?Cal.3d?1260]?father?did?not?need?to?appear?and?that?petitioner?would?arrange?for?the?remittitur?to?be?recalled.
In?April?1987,?Fields’s?father?voluntarily?appeared?in?court,?where?his?nonappearance?was?excused?and?his?bail?was?exonerated.?He?was?remanded?to?prison?because?his?appeal?had?been?dismissed.?He?served?his?sentence?and?was?released?in?February?1988.
The?hearing?judge,?after?reviewing?Fields’s?declaration,?tentatively?found?that?the?State?Bar?had?”borne?out?the?charges?[filed?with?respect?to?this?matter],?…”?In?his?decision,?however,?the?judge?was?unable?to?conclude?that?Fields?had?suffered?prejudice?as?a?result?of?petitioner’s?misconduct,?observing?that?petitioner?was?”not?primarily?responsible?for?the?client?being?jailed.”
The?Bilson?Matter
In?September?1987,?Stephen?Bilson?gave?petitioner?a?$250?advance?fee?to?represent?Bilson?in?a?civil?suit.?Petitioner?filed?a?timely?answer?on?behalf?of?Bilson?on?October?2,?1987.?Thereafter,?Bilson?could?not?get?petitioner?to?respond?to?his?repeated?phone?calls?or?to?a?letter?sent?to?petitioner?by?certified?mail.?Bilson?finally?contacted?petitioner?in?January?1988,?a?month?before?the?trial?date,?and?requested?that?petitioner?request?a?continuance?of?the?trial?so?that?Bilson?could?hire?new?counsel.?Petitioner?appeared?at?trial?and?did?not?withdraw?as?Bilson’s?attorney;?Bilson?did?not?appear.?A?judgment?of?$22,223.50?was?entered?against?Bilson,?who?is?now?contesting?that?judgment.
Bilson?did?not?appear?at?the?default?hearing?but?his?declaration?was?introduced.?The?hearing?judge?in?his?tentative?ruling?noted?that?he?was?unable?to?infer,?from?Bilson’s?declaration,?whether?petitioner?failed?to?request?a?continuance?at?trial?for?substitution?of?counsel,?or?whether?petitioner?in?fact?made?such?a?motion?which?was?denied.?However,?the?hearing?judge?did?find?petitioner?culpable?of?certain?other?disciplinary?violations?for?this?incident?in?his?October?6,?1989,?order.
The?Rhodes?Matter
In?August?1985,?Kendell?Rhodes’s?attorney?in?Alaska?arranged?for?petitioner?to?represent?Rhodes?by?taking?depositions?in?California?to?be?used?in?his?pending?criminal?case?in?Alaska.?Petitioner?was?paid?an?advance?fee?of?$500?in?connection?with?this?agreement.?Rhodes,?who?could?not?get?a?response?from?petitioner,?was?later?informed?by?his?attorney?in?Alaska?that?the?depositions?in?California?were?scheduled?for?November?26,?1985.?[53?Cal.3d?1261]
Petitioner?did?not?appear?at?the?deposition.?Though?the?court?reporter?told?Rhodes?that?petitioner?was?sick,?Rhodes?called?petitioner’s?office?and?was?told?that?petitioner?was?out?of?the?office?on?another?matter.?After?making?several?unsuccessful?attempts?to?reach?petitioner?by?telephone,?Rhodes?terminated?his?relationship?with?petitioner?in?January?1986?and?demanded?that?his?fee?of?$500?be?returned.?Petitioner?did?not?respond.?Rhodes?won?a?small?claims?judgment?of?$509?against?petitioner?in?June?1986.?Petitioner?had?not?paid?Rhodes?as?of?the?date?of?the?hearing?of?the?State?Bar?Court.
The?hearing?judge?considered?Rhodes’s?declaration?and?tentatively?determined?that?the?charges?were?”pretty?straightforward?and?borne?out.”
State?Bar?Findings
On?the?basis?of?the?evidence?presented?at?the?default?hearing,?the?hearing?judge?determined?that?petitioner?had?violated:?former?rule?2-111(A)(2)?of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct?(withdrawing?from?employment?without?taking?reasonable?steps?to?avoid?foreseeable?prejudice?to?the?rights?of?his?clients?in?the?Hubbard,?Fields,?and?Bilson?matters);?former?rule?2-111(A)(3)?of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct?(withdrawing?from?employment?without?promptly?refunding?an?unearned?advance?fee?in?the?Fields,?Bilson,?and?Rhodes?matters);?former?rule?6-101(A)(2)?of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct?(intentionally?or?with?reckless?disregard?failing?to?perform?legal?services?competently?in?all?of?the?above?matters);?former?rule?6-101(B)(1)?of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct?(accepting?employment?when?he?knew?that?he?did?not?have,?or?would?not?have,?or?would?not?acquire?before?performance?was?required,?sufficient?time,?resources?and?ability?to?perform?this?matter?with?competence?in?the?Hubbard?and?Fields?matters);?and?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?6068,?subdivision?(m)?(failing?to?keep?his?clients?reasonably?informed?of?significant?developments?in?all?of?the?above?matters).?As?a?result?of?these?violations,?the?hearing?judge?found?that?petitioner?violated?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?6068,?subdivision?(a)?(willfully?failing?to?support?the?laws?of?this?state),?and?that?standards?2.4(b)?and?2.6?of?the?Standards?for?Attorney?Sanctions?for?Professional?Misconduct?(Rules?Proc.?of?State?Bar,?div.?V)?and?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?6103?should?be?applied.?The?hearing?judge?recommended?that?petitioner?be?suspended?from?the?practice?of?law?for?one?year,?and?that?the?suspension?be?stayed?upon?certain?conditions?including?probation?for?eighteen?months.
The?hearing?judge’s?decision?was?filed?on?October?6,?1989.?Petitioner?was?sent?a?copy?of?the?decision?and?notice?of?his?right?to?move?to?have?the?default?vacated?pursuant?to?former?State?Bar?Rules?of?Procedure,?rule?[53?Cal.3d?1262]?555.1.fn.?1?Petitioner?did?not?respond?to?this?mailing.?In?May?1990,?the?State?Bar?Court?forwarded?the?findings?and?recommendations?of?the?hearing?department?to?this?court.?Petitioner?filed?a?timely?petition?for?review?on?July?30,?1990,fn.?2?which?was?granted?August?29,?1990.
Petition?for?Review?and?Assertions?Contained?Therein
Petitioner?contends?that?a?physical?ailment?prevented?him?both?from?attending?the?hearing?of?the?State?Bar?Court?and?from?filing?a?motion?seeking?relief?within?the?statutory?period?for?filing?such?motions.?He?asks?this?court?to?grant?him?relief?from?his?default?and?to?remand?the?matter?to?the?State?Bar?Court?for?another?opportunity?to?present?evidence?on?the?merits.?He?claims?to?have?first?become?aware?of?the?default?in?January?1990,?long?after?the?75-day?period?for?setting?aside?the?default.?His?declaration?states?that?he?contacted?the?State?Bar?at?that?time?and?made?full?restitution?to?Rhodes.?According?to?petitioner,?the?State?Bar?advised?petitioner?on?May?30,?1990,?that?it?was?too?late?to?obtain?relief?from?default?in?the?State?Bar?Court?and?advised?him?that?the?State?Bar?Court?would?be?filing?its?recommendation?with?the?Supreme?Court?soon.?After?the?State?Bar?filed?its?recommendation?with?this?court,?petitioner?filed?a?timely?petition?for?review.
In?support?of?his?request?to?be?granted?a?belated?relief?from?default,?petitioner?documents?that?he?suffers?from?”temporal?lobe?epilepsy.”?Petitioner’s?history?with?this?ailment?stems?from?an?injury?to?his?head?in?1971.?He?had?a?generalized?seizure?in?1984,?for?which?he?was?treated?with?various?drugs.?The?drugs?had?adverse?side?effects?upon?petitioner,?and?he?discontinued?their?use?in?1986?or?1987.?During?this?time,?petitioner?believed?that?he?was?suffering?from?depression?and?was?aware?of?some?memory?loss,?for?which?he?received?counseling?through?1988.?Apparently?petitioner?then?sought?no?further?aid?until?December?1989,?when?he?turned?to?a?new?doctor?for?medical?treatment.?Petitioner?found?this?treatment?ineffective?and?sought?out?another?medical?team?in?March?1990.?For?the?first?time,?petitioner’s?temporal?lobe?epilepsy?was?diagnosed?and?effectively?treated.
Petitioner?argues?that?his?illness?”created?a?’false?memory’?which?prevented?him?from?defending?himself?insofar?as?he?falsely?believed?that?he?had?provided?the?State?Bar?with?exculpatory?evidence?when?in?fact?he?had?not.”?He?further?attributes?to?the?illness?his?failure?to?respond?to?the?hearing?[53?Cal.3d?1263]?judge’s?filed?decision?of?October?6,?1989.?Petitioner?thus?points?out?that?his?failure?to?file?a?request?for?review?of?the?decision?by?November?6,?1989,?was?during?”a?time?when?[petitioner]?was?not?properly?diagnosed?for?his?illness.”?Petitioner?does?not?argue?that?his?illness?was?the?underlying?cause?of?the?violations?alleged?by?the?State?Bar;fn.?3?instead,?he?argues?that?his?disability?prevented?him?from?defending?himself?in?the?State?Bar?proceedings.
Petitioner?submitted?a?letter?dated?May?11,?1990,?in?which?his?physician?explains?petitioner’s?treatment?with?Tegretol,?”the?drug?of?choice?for?seizure?control?and?limbic?epilepsy.”?The?doctor?”anticipated?that?[petitioner]?will?be?stabilized?on?Tegretol?and?require?this?medication?for?life?if?it?does?control?his?symptoms.?[She?did]?not?anticipate?any?worsening?of?his?symptoms?or?the?development?of?an?actual?psychiatric?illness?at?this?point?in?his?life.”?Petitioner,?in?his?declaration?in?his?petition?for?review,?asserts?that?since?receiving?the?Tegretol?treatment,?”[he?had]?not?experienced?any?additional?lapses?of?consciousness?or?memory?problems.”
- Discussion
- Remand?to?State?Bar?Court
Second,?the?State?Bar?notes?that?the?letter?that?petitioner?has?submitted?from?his?supervisor?at?the?State?Public?Defender’s?office?indicates?that?from?the?first?day?of?his?employment?as?a?deputy?state?public?defender?on?December?18,?1989,?through?the?diagnosis?of?his?illness?in?March?1990,?petitioner?had?completed?his?case?assignments?(according?to?a?letter?from?the?chief?assistant?state?public?defender)?as?a?deputy?state?public?defender?in?a?”capable,?diligent?manner.”?Indeed,?the?chief?assistant?state?public?defender?noted?that?he?had?”seen?no?evidence?of?aberrant?behavior”?in?petitioner.?The?State?Bar?argues?that?it?is?curious?that?evidence?of?petitioner’s?illness?was?entirely?absent?among?the?persons?with?whom?petitioner?worked,?in?spite?of?the?fact?that?for?much?of?this?time?his?temporal?lobe?epilepsy?was?undiagnosed?and?while,?presumably,?petitioner?continued?to?suffer?from?symptoms?such?as?false?memory.
We?agree?with?the?State?Bar?that?petitioner’s?claim?that?temporal?lobe?epilepsy?precluded?him?from?responding?in?the?State?Bar?proceedings?is?implausible.?Though?his?doctor?attests?that?petitioner?suffers?from?temporal?lobe?epilepsy,?the?doctor?does?not?suggest?that?this?ailment?would?account?for?petitioner’s?failure?to?respond?to?the?charges?filed?against?petitioner?by?the?State?Bar;?indeed,?after?describing?false?memory?as?a?symptom?of?temporal?lobe?epilepsy,?petitioner?notes?that?the?false?memories?are?not?permanent?but?generally?recede?”after?a?few?days.”?Yet?petitioner?implies?that?this?particular?memory,?that?the?State?Bar?charges?had?been?dismissed,?never?receded?even?in?the?face?of?notices?to?the?contrary.
We?find?other?facts?which?undermine?petitioner’s?claim?regarding?the?effect?his?disability?had?on?his?ability?to?respond?to?the?State?Bar?proceedings.?As?the?State?Bar?notes,?the?fact?that?petitioner?practiced?competently?as?a?deputy?state?public?defender?for?three?and?a?half?months?before?receiving?effective?treatment?for?his?epilepsy?suggests?that?petitioner?was?capable?of?assimilating?and?acting?upon?pertinent?information.?We?see?no?reason?to?distinguish?his?clients’?cases?from?petitioner’s?own?case.?Finally,?petitioner?[53?Cal.3d?1265]?was?aware?of?recurring?problems?caused?by?symptoms?of?temporal?lobe?epilepsyfn.?5?at?the?time?of?the?State?Bar?proceedings.?This?awareness?establishes,?at?the?very?least,?petitioner’s?inexcusable?neglect?in?not?providing?some?mechanism?to?prevent?exactly?this?situation?from?arising?(e.g.,?by?retaining?counsel?to?represent?him?or?by?alerting?a?secretary?or?other?such?person?to?monitor?the?progress?of?the?proceeding).?(See?former?Rules?Proc.?of?State?Bar,?rule?555.1(a);?Code?Civ.?Proc.,???473.)
For?all?of?the?above?reasons,?we?do?not?find?that?remand?of?petitioner’s?case?to?the?State?Bar?Court?is?warranted.?Accordingly,?this?request?is?denied.
- Review?on?the?Merits
Petitioner?submits?his?declaration,?which?asserts?that?his?clients’?grievances?were?the?result?of?their?own?actions-not?petitioner’s?conduct.?[4]?We?have?repeatedly?asserted?our?reluctance?to?consider?evidence?that?has?not?been?presented?in?State?Bar?proceedings.?”?'[T]his?court?hesitates?to?rely?upon?any?documentary?evidence?that?is?extrinsic?to?the?record?of?the?proceedings?before?the?State?Bar.’?[Citations.]?’Such?evidence?is?virtually?impossible?to?evaluate?in?the?absence?of?cross-examination?….’?”?(Bercovich?v.?State?Bar?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?116,?126?[266?Cal.Rptr.?341,?785?P.2d?889],?italics?in?original;?see?also?Lydon?v.?State?Bar?(1988)?45?Cal.3d?1181,?1187?[248?Cal.Rptr.?830,?756?P.2d?217];?Rosenthal?v.?State?Bar?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?658,?663?[238?Cal.Rptr.?394,?738?P.2d?740].)?In?the?absence?of?cross-examination,?we?are?unable?to?evaluate?petitioner’s?”own,?self-serving,?out-of-court?statements.”?(Lydon?v.?State?Bar,?supra,?45?Cal.3d?at?p.?1187.)?[53?Cal.3d?1266]?Accordingly,?we?decline?petitioner’s?invitation?to?consider?his?declaration?as?it?relates?to?the?substantive?State?Bar?charges?and?limit?our?review?to?the?facts?described?in?the?record.
[5]?In?this?case,?the?State?Bar?recommends?that?we?discipline?petitioner?for:?withdrawing?from?employment?without?taking?reasonable?steps?to?avoid?foreseeable?prejudice?to?the?rights?of?his?clients?in?the?Hubbard,?Fields,?and?Bilson?matters;?willfully?failing?to?perform?services?in?a?competent?manner?in?the?Hubbard,?Bilson,?and?Rhodes?matters;?willfully?failing?to?respond?to?a?client’s?status?inquiries?or?keep?his?client?reasonably?informed?of?significant?developments?in?the?Hubbard,?Fields,?Bilson,?and?Rhodes?matters;?and?withdrawing?from?employment?without?promptly?refunding?an?unearned?advanced?fee?in?the?Fields,?Bilson,?and?Rhodes?matters.It?is?beyond?question?that?petitioner’s?alleged?acts?of?misconduct?warrant?discipline:?”We?have?considered?abandonment?of?clients?and?retention?of?unearned?fees?as?serious?misconduct?warranting?periods?of?actual?suspension?….”?(Matthew?v.?State?Bar?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?784,?791?[263?Cal.Rptr.?660,?781?P.2d?952].)?A?summary?review?of?cases?involving?client?abandonment?and?retention?of?unearned?fees?supports?this?assertion.?In?Lester?v.?State?Bar?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?547[131?Cal.Rptr.?225,?551?P.2d?841],?four?instances?in?which?the?attorney?retained?unearned?fees?resulted?in?the?attorney’s?six-?month?actual?suspension?from?practice.?In?Smith?v.?State?Bar?(1985)38?Cal.3d?525?[213?Cal.Rptr.?236,?698?P.2d?139],?an?attorney?was?found?to?have?abandoned?one?client?(resulting?in?the?issuance?of?a?contempt?order?against?the?client)?and?retained?the?unearned?fees?of?another;?for?his?misconduct,?we?imposed?thirty?days’?actual?suspension.?In?Stuart?v.?State?Bar?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?838?[221?Cal.Rptr.?557,?710?P.2d?357],?an?attorney?who?had?been?privately?reproved?in?a?different?matter?eight?years?before?was?actually?suspended?for?thirty?days?for?one?instance?of?client?abandonment?(resulting?in?the?dismissal?of?that?client’s?case).
In?light?of?this?precedent,?the?discipline?recommended?by?the?State?Bar?may?appear?lenient.fn.?6We?note,?however,?the?hearing?judge’s?obvious?concern?about?the?adequacy?of?the?case?presented?by?the?State?Bar?in?petitioner’s?absence.?In?the?Hubbard?matter?the?hearing?judge?found?the?State?Bar’s?assertions?about?petitioner’s?misconduct?insufficiently?supported?by?evidence?and?was?therefore?unable?to?conclude?that?petitioner?had?refused?to?refund?advanced?fees?or?had?abandoned?his?client.?In?the?Fields?matter?there?was?no?finding?of?prejudice?to?the?client,?and?the?decision?notes?that?”Fields?might?well?have?been?jailed?earlier?than?he?would?likely?otherwise?have?[53?Cal.3d?1267]?been”?but?for?petitioner’s?actions?on?Fields’s?behalf.?In?the?Bilson?matter?the?hearing?judge?was?skeptical?that?petitioner?went?to?the?trouble?of?showing?up?at?Bilson’s?hearing?and?then?did?absolutely?nothing,?as?the?State?Bar?suggests.fn.?7?Only?in?the?Rhodes?matter?did?the?hearing?judge?not?articulate?serious?misgivings?about?the?adequacy?of?the?evidence?presented?against?petitioner.
While?the?ultimate?responsibility?for?imposing?disciplinary?sanctions?upon?attorneys?falls?to?this?court,?we?have?repeatedly?emphasized?our?reliance?on?factual?findings?made?by?hearing?judges.?”We?generally?give?more?weight?to?the?factual?findings?of?the?hearing?panel?since?it?has?a?better?opportunity?to?observe?the?testimony?of?various?witnesses.”?(In?re?Young?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?257,?264-265?[261?Cal.Rptr.?59,?776?P.2d?1021];?see?also?Hartford?v.?State?Bar?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?1139,?1149?[270?Cal.Rptr.?12,?791?P.2d?598];?Dixon?v.?State?Bar?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?728,?736?[187?Cal.Rptr.?30,?653?P.2d?321].)?In?this?instance,?the?hearing?judge’s?recommendation?followed?his?finding?that?the?State?Bar?had?failed?to?establish?several?of?the?acts?of?misconduct?that?it?alleged?petitioner?had?committed.?In?no?case?was?significant?prejudice?to?a?client?established;?it?is?clear?from?the?record?that-with?the?exception?of?Kendell?Rhodes-the?clients’?”unreturned”?fees?were?nominal.?In?sum,?we?find?that?on?the?facts?that?we?have?adopted,?the?hearing?judge’s?recommendations?state?appropriate?disciplinary?sanctions?for?petitioner’s?misconduct.
“The?object?of?disciplinary?proceedings?is?to?protect?the?public?and?the?courts,?and?to?preserve?confidence?in?the?legal?profession.”?(Young?v.?State?Bar,?supra,?50?Cal.3d?at?p.?1215.)?We?find?this?objective?sufficiently?served?by?imposition?of?the?discipline?recommended?by?the?hearing?department.?Further,?in?light?of?his?treatment?with?the?appropriate?medication?and?the?assurances?of?his?employer?that?his?clients?will?be?protected?in?the?event?of?a?relapse,fn.?8?we?see?no?need?to?impose?additional?disciplinary?sanctions?as?a?prophylactic?measure.
III.?Disposition
We?adopt?the?findings?and?recommendations?of?the?Hearing?Department?of?the?State?Bar?Court?in?its?decision?filed?on?October?6,?1989.?It?is?hereby?[53?Cal.3d?1268]?ordered?that?petitioner?Jay?P.?Colangelo?be?suspended?from?the?practice?of?law?for?one?year,?and?that?execution?of?the?order?be?stayed?and?petitioner?be?placed?on?probation?for?a?period?of?eighteen?months?subject?to?the?conditions?recommended?by?the?hearing?department?in?the?decision?filed?on?October?6,?1989.fn.?9
We?further?order?that?petitioner?take?and?pass?the?Professional?Responsibility?Examination?within?one?year?from?the?effective?date?of?this?order;?and?that?he?offer?evidence?satisfactory?to?the?State?Bar?that?his?temporal?lobe?epilepsy?does?not?and?will?not?affect?his?fitness?as?an?attorney,?or?that?he?has?taken?measures?adequate?to?protect?his?clients?should?memory?loss?and?associated?symptoms?impair?his?ability?to?function?as?an?attorney.
This?order?shall?be?effective?upon?finality?of?this?decision?in?this?court.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?953(a).)
BAXTER,?J.,
Concurring?and?Dissenting.
I?agree?that?petitioner?has?demonstrated?no?excuse?for?his?failure?to?pursue?timely?remedies?before?the?State?Bar?Court.?Petitioner’s?”false?memories”?theory?is?inherently?implausible.?Thus,?as?the?majority?conclude,?no?remand?to?the?State?Bar?Court?is?justified,?and?this?court?should?not?consider?petitioner’s?exculpatory?evidence?for?any?reason.
I?respectfully?dissent,?however,?from?much?of?the?remaining?analysis,?and?from?the?discipline?imposed.?An?independent?assessment?of?the?evidence?demonstrates?a?serious?pattern?of?prejudicial?misconduct?warranting?actual?suspension.
The?majority?suggest?that?the?hearing?judge’s?recommendation?of?leniency?stemmed?from?his?belief?that?several?of?the?charges?had?not?been?established?by?the?declaratory?evidence.?However,?the?hearing?judge?ultimately?found?multiple?counts?of?abandonment?(Hubbard,?Fields,?and?Bilson),?over-commitment?(Hubbard?and?Fields),?retention?of?unearned?fees?(Fields,?Bilson,?and?Rhodes),?incompetence?(all?four?matters),?and?failure?to?communicate?(all?four?matters).?Except?in?the?Bilson?case,?the?undisputed?evidence?supporting?each?of?these?findings?was?clear?and?convincing,?and?they?should?be?upheld.fn.?1?[53?Cal.3d?1269]
The?majority?also?stress?the?hearing?judge’s?impression?that?petitioner’s?misconduct?caused?no?substantial?harm?to?his?clients.?However,?the?hearing?judge’s?opinion?on?that?subject?deserves?no?special?deference.
“The?State?Bar?Court’s?findings?…?are?not?binding?on?this?court.?[Citation.]?We?generally?give?more?weight?to?the?factual?findings?of?the?hearing?[judge]?since?[he]?has?a?better?opportunity?to?observe?the?testimony?of?various?witnesses.?[Citation.]?However,?we?must?independently?examine?the?evidence?and?determine?its?sufficiency?in?State?Bar?disciplinary?matters.?[Citation.]?…”?(In?re?Young?(1989)?49?Cal.3d?257,?264-265?[261?Cal.Rptr.?59,?776?P.2d?1021].)
Our?duty?of?independent?review?obliges?us?to?draw?our?own?inferences?from?undisputed?facts,?and?to?reach?our?own?conclusions?of?law.?If?this?process?exposes?flaws?in?the?premises?upon?which?the?State?Bar?Court?rested?its?disciplinary?recommendation,?the?recommendation?itself?must?be?discounted?accordingly.
Contrary?to?the?hearing?judge’s?suggestion,?the?undisputed?evidence?shows?that?petitioner’s?misconduct?caused?substantial?harm?to?clients?Hubbard,?Fields,?and?Rhodes?as?a?matter?of?law.?As?the?hearing?judge?conceded,?Ms.?Hubbard’s?arrest?and?temporary?incarceration?occurred?at?least?in?part?because?petitioner?”wilfully”?ignored?her?requests?for?guidance?about?fulfilling?the?plea?bargain?she?had?retained?him?to?negotiate.fn.?2?In?the?Fields?matter,?petitioner’s?inaction?caused?the?plain?loss?of?criminal?appeal?rights,?a?serious?matter.fn.?3?Petitioner’s?persistent?failure?to?return?unearned?fees?in?the?Rhodes?matter?forced?the?client?to?resort?to?legal?remedies?for?collection.?Indeed,?petitioner?steadfastly?refused?to?honor?the?judgment?obtained,?even?after?the?client?contacted?the?State?Bar.?[53?Cal.3d?1270]
As?the?majority?acknowledge,?actual?suspension?is?a?traditional?discipline?for?multiple?acts?of?abandonment?and?failure?to?return?fees,?where?harm?to?clients?is?involved.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1266,?and?cases?there?cited.)?The?State?Bar’s?sanctions?for?professional?misconduct?suggest?disbarment?for?a?pattern?of?abandonment,?and?that?suspension?is?appropriate?for?individual?instances?of?abandonment?or?failure?to?communicate?with?resulting?harm.?(See?Transitional?Rules?Proc.?of?State?Bar,?div.?V,?Stds.?for?Atty.?Sanctions?for?Prof.?Misconduct,?std.?2.4(a),?(b).)?In?my?view,?petitioner’s?delay?in?honoring?the?Rhodes?judgment?is?an?aggravating?circumstance?warranting?enhanced?discipline.?(Id.,?std.?1.6(b)(i).)
I?conclude?that?our?duty?to?protect?the?public?and?the?courts?can?only?be?fulfilled?by?requiring?a?period?of?actual?suspension.?I?would?order?petitioner’s?suspension?from?the?practice?of?law?for?two?years,?and?that?he?be?actually?suspended?for?sixty?days?as?a?condition?of?probation.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?Former?State?Bar?Rules?of?Procedure,?rule?555.1,?in?effect?at?the?time?of?petitioner’s?default,?was?subsequently?reenacted?without?change?on?September?1,?1989,?under?the?Transitional?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar.
FN?2.?In?his?petition?for?review?petitioner?submits?letters?from?his?treating?physicians,?his?supervisor?at?the?office?of?the?State?Public?Defender,?two?letters?from?the?State?Bar?dated?March?30,?1990,?and?May?30,?1990,?and?his?own?declaration.
FN?3.?In?his?petition,?petitioner?offers?a?defense?to?each?of?the?counts.?As?we?discuss?below?(see?post,?pp.?1265-1266),?we?do?not?consider?this?”evidence”?petitioner?presents?in?arriving?at?our?conclusion.
FN?4.?The?State?Bar,?in?its?brief,?implicitly?recognizes?that?this?court?has?the?authority?to?remand?this?case?to?the?State?Bar?Court?for?further?findings,?though?remand?is?not?specifically?anticipated?by?the?State?Bar’s?Transitional?Rules?of?Procedure.?(See?Transitional?Rules?Proc.?of?State?Bar,?rule?555.1.)
FN?5.?Petitioner’s?brief?states?that?these?false?memories?occurred?on?several?occasions?and?that?he?was?aware?of?these?symptoms?of?his?ailment:?”[Petitioner]?has?in?his?memory?acts?and?deeds?complete?with?conversations?with?various?parties,?phone?calls,?and?even?descriptions?of?certain?persons?and,?he?is?convinced?that?these?memories?are?real.?It?is?only?after?a?few?days?that?he?realizes?that?none?of?his?’memories’?are?in?fact?real.”
FN?6.?We?note?that?even?in?its?briefs?before?this?court,?the?State?Bar?argues?that?the?discipline?recommended?for?petitioner?is?”clearly?not?excessive,”?but?does?not?advocate?more?serious?discipline?(e.g.,?actual?suspension)?based?on?the?facts?adduced?by?the?hearing?department.
FN?7.?In?oral?argument?before?this?court,?petitioner?claimed?that?he?had,?in?fact,?appeared?at?trial?to?request?a?continuance?so?that?Bilson?could?obtain?alternate?representation.?The?motion?was?denied?by?the?court.?Though?we?do?not?consider?this?extrinsic?evidence,?but?rather?adopt?the?hearing?judge’s?findings,?it?is?clear?from?the?record?that?the?hearing?judge?considered?that?petitioner?may?have?moved?for?the?continuance,?and?that?the?hearing?judge?found?that?the?charge?that?petitioner?had?disregarded?his?client’s?instructions?was?therefore?unproven.
FN?8.?In?oral?argument,?petitioner?pointed?out?that?his?current?employment?with?the?State?Public?Defender?is?well?suited?to?a?person?with?his?ailment:?the?team?system?in?effect?at?present?assures?that?one?to?two?colleagues?will?always?be?aware?of?the?status?of?petitioner’s?cases?and,?accordingly,?clients?will?be?protected?even?if?a?relapse?does?occur.
FN?9.?Condition?No.?1?of?the?hearing?department’s?decision?involved?restitution?in?the?Rhodes?matter.?Petitioner?made?this?restitution.?(See?ante,?at?p.?1262.)?Accordingly,?condition?1?of?the?recommendation?is?hereby?excluded?from?this?order.
FN?1.?As?to?Bilson,?the?finding?of?failure?to?communicate?seems?amply?supported,?but?Bilson’s?declaration?does?not?prove?petitioner?abandoned?him,?failed?to?return?unearned?fees,?or?provided?incompetent?service.?As?the?hearing?judge?noted,?there?is?no?competent?evidence?that?petitioner?ignored?Bilson’s?instruction?to?withdraw?and?seek?a?continuance,?or?that?petitioner?culpably?failed?to?prepare?and?present?a?competent?defense?in?Bilson’s?case.?Bilson’s?voluntary?absence?at?the?time?the?trial?was?scheduled?does?not?demonstrate?petitioner’s?misconduct.
FN?2.?The?majority?declares?that?the?hearing?judge?”was?unable?to?conclude?that?petitioner?…?had?abandoned?[Hubbard]”?within?the?meaning?of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?1266.)?On?the?contrary,?after?some?twisting?and?turning?about?the?extent?of?petitioner’s?”contractual”?obligation,?the?hearing?judge?nonetheless?found?that?petitioner’s?failure?”to?properly?advise?…?Hubbard?as?to?how?to?enroll?in?the?[sheriff’s?work]?program?and?…?to?provide?her?with?copies?of?the?material?papers?despite?multiple?requests”?clearly?and?convincingly?established?that?petitioner?”wilfully?violated?former?Rule?…?2-111(A)(2)?[of?the?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct]?by?withdrawing?from?employment?without?taking?reasonable?steps?to?avoid?foreseeable?prejudice?to?the?rights?of?his?client.”?Even?if?the?hearing?judge?had?failed?to?make?this?finding,?however,?we?would?not?be?precluded?from?doing?so?on?the?undisputed?evidence.
FN?3.?The?hearing?judge?suggested?there?was?no?evidence?that?the?appeal?would?have?been?meritorious.?He?also?speculated?that?appellant?Fields?might?not?have?remained?free?on?appellate?bond?as?long?as?he?did?if?petitioner?had?not?engaged?in?tactics?to?slow?down?the?appeal.?This?”no-prejudice”?reasoning?is?flawed?in?two?respects.?First,?when?counsel’s?delay?results?in?the?loss?of?his?client’s?right?to?appeal,?the?misconduct?cannot?be?deemed?harmless?on?grounds?the?appeal?might?not?have?succeeded.?Second,?it?seems?likely?that?appellant?Fields?would?have?remained?free?longer?had?the?appeal?been?considered?rather?than?prematurely?dismissed.