Potack v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 132 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 335; 813 P.2d 1365 (1991)

LexRoll.com > LexRoll (CA) > California Supreme Court > 1991 > Potack v. State Bar (1991) 54 Cal.3d 132 , 284 Cal.Rptr. 335; 813 P.2d 1365 (1991)


Potack?v.?State?Bar?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?132?,?284?Cal.Rptr.?335;?813?P.2d?1365

[No.?S015089.?Aug?19,?1991.]

RICHARD?N.?POTACK,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?STATE?BAR?OF?CALIFORNIA,?Respondent.

(Opinion?by?The?Court.)
COUNSEL

Richard?N.?Potack,?in?pro.?per.,?for?Petitioner.

Diane?C.?Yu,?Richard?J.?Zanassi?and?Russell?G.?Weiner?for?Respondent.
OPINION

THE?COURT.

We?consider?the?recommendation?of?the?Review?Department?of?the?State?Bar?Court?to?revoke?petitioner’s?probation?for?failing?to?comply?with?our?order?in?a?prior?disciplinary?matter?(Bar?Misc.?No.?5066).?After?considering?the?evidence?and?petitioner’s?contentions,?we?adopt?the?recommendation?of?the?review?department.

  1. Findings?of?Fact

 

  1. Previous?discipline

Petitioner?was?admitted?to?the?practice?of?law?in?December?1975.?In?May?1986,?we?adopted?the?recommendation?of?the?review?department?that?petitioner?be?suspended?from?practicing?law?for?three?years,?that?execution?of?the?order?for?such?suspension?be?stayed,?and?that?petitioner?be?placed?on?probation?for?three?years?on?conditions?including?actual?suspension?for?one?year.?Pursuant?to?the?conditions?of?probation,?petitioner?was?required?to?take?and?pass?the?Professional?Responsibility?Examination,?make?restitution?to?several?clients,?comply?with?quarterly?reporting?requirements?(such?reports?due?on?January?10,?April?20,?July?10?and?October?10?of?each?year?of?probation)?and?participate?in?a?drug?rehabilitation?program.?Petitioner’s?prior?misconduct?leading?to?the?discipline?imposed?in?1986?included?the?failure?to?perform?services?in?a?competent?and?diligent?manner?(former?Rules?Prof.?Conduct,?rule?6-102(2)),?the?failure?to?maintain?a?proper?client?trust?account?[54?Cal.3d?135]?(former?Rules?Prof.?Conduct,?rule?8-101(A)),?the?failure?to?refund?promptly?that?part?of?a?fee?paid?in?advance?that?he?had?not?earned?(former?Rules?Prof.?Conduct,?rule?2-111(A)(3)),?the?representation?of?conflicting?interests?without?obtaining?the?written?consent?of?all?parties?concerned?(former?Rules?Prof.?Conduct,?rule?5-102(B))?and?the?violation?of?his?oath?and?duties?as?an?attorney?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,????6068,?6103).

  1. Present?Misconduct

On?October?20,?1988,?the?State?Bar?Court,?through?its?probation?department,?sent?petitioner?a?letter?notifying?him?that?his?October?10,?1988,?report?had?not?been?filed.?The?letter?informed?petitioner?that?if?the?report?was?not?filed?within?10?days,?the?State?Bar?would?file?a?notice?to?show?cause?why?petitioner’s?probation?should?not?be?revoked?pursuant?to?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar,?rule?550?et?seq.?Petitioner?failed?to?timely?file?the?report.

On?November?17,?1988,?the?State?Bar?filed?a?notice?to?show?cause?regarding?revocation?of?probation?pursuant?to?rule?550?et?seq.?of?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar.?The?notice?stated?that?petitioner?had?failed?to?comply?with?the?conditions?of?his?probation?in?that?he?did?not?file?a?quarterly?report?on?or?before?October?10,?1988.?Petitioner?was?notified?to?appear?before?a?referee?at?a?specific?time?and?place?”and?there?to?show?cause?why?it?should?not?be?recommended?to?the?Supreme?Court?of?the?State?of?California?that?the?stay?of?the?Order?of?your?suspension?entered?by?the?Supreme?Court?be?set?aside?and?revoked?and?that?you?be?suspended?from?the?practice?of?law?in?the?State?of?California?for?a?period?of?up?to?three?(3)?years.?On?further?notice,?to?show?cause?why?the?State?Bar?Court?should?not?order?your?involuntary?inactive?enrollment?pursuant?to?Business?and?Professions?Code?[section]?6007?subdivision?(d)?and?Rule?612(b)?of?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar?of?California?in?the?event?the?hearing?panel?recommends?that?you?be?suspended?from?the?practice?of?law.”?The?notice?indicated?that?if?petitioner?did?not?file?the?report?within?20?days,?he?would?be?subject?to?default?proceedings?under?rule?552?of?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar.?Petitioner?failed?to?timely?respond?to?the?notice.

On?November?22,?1988,?petitioner?filed?a?probation?report?for?the?October?1988?reporting?period.?The?State?Bar?found?that?the?report?was?not?in?compliance?with?condition?3(a)?of?the?terms?of?probation?because?it?failed?to?certify?that?petitioner?had?complied?with?all?the?provisions?of?the?State?Bar?Act?and?Rules?of?Professional?Conduct?during?the?period?specified?in?the?report.?The?next?day,?the?State?Bar?informed?petitioner?that?he?should?submit?an?amended?report?within?10?days.?When?petitioner?failed?to?comply?with?the?State?Bar’s?directive,?he?was?notified?(by?certified?mail)?that?a?mandatory?[54?Cal.3d?136]?settlement?conference?had?been?scheduled?for?March?1989?pursuant?to?former?rules?1210?to?1225?of?the?Provisional?Rules?of?Practice?of?the?State?Bar?Court.

On?February?15,?1989,?the?State?Bar?served?petitioner?with?a?notice?of?application?to?enter?default,?charging?petitioner?with?failing?to?file?an?answer?to?the?November?notice?to?show?cause?as?required?by?rule?552?of?the?Rules?of?Procedure?of?the?State?Bar.?Petitioner?was?informed?that?the?State?Bar?would?seek?a?default?on?the?probation?revocation?unless?petitioner?responded?to?the?notice?within?20?days.?Again,?petitioner?failed?to?timely?respond?to?the?notice.

On?March?8,?petitioner?was?served?with?a?notice?of?entry?of?default?for?failure?to?answer.?The?notice?advised?petitioner?that?a?default?had?been?entered?against?him?because?he?failed?to?file?a?timely?answer?to?the?notice?to?show?cause.

On?March?23,?petitioner?was?served?with?a?separate?notice?to?show?cause?regarding?revocation?of?probation?(No.?88-P-11031).?The?notice?charged?that?petitioner?had?failed?to?file?an?amended?report?as?required?by?the?probation?department?on?November?23,?1988,?and?further?charged?that?petitioner?violated?the?conditions?of?his?probation?by?failing?to?make?timely?restitution?to?his?clients.?Although?petitioner?informed?the?State?Bar?that?he?would?be?making?a?motion?to?set?aside?the?default,?he?failed?to?do?so.

In?May?1989,?a?default?hearing?was?held?on?petitioner’s?failure?to?file?a?timely?quarterly?report.?The?hearing?panel?concluded?that?petitioner?had?willfully?failed?to?file?a?report?for?the?October?1988?period.?In?addition,?the?hearing?panel?found?in?aggravation?that?petitioner?had?failed?to?show?he?made?restitution?to?his?former?clients?pursuant?to?our?May?1986?order.

  1. Discipline

The?hearing?panel?recommended?that?petitioner?be?placed?on?actual?suspension?for?the?two?remaining?years?of?his?stayed?suspension.fn.?1?One?month?later,?petitioner?moved?to?set?aside?the?default.?The?State?Bar?Court?denied?the?motion?after?concluding?that?petitioner?failed?to?demonstrate?either?good?cause?or?excusable?neglect?for?his?failure?to?comply?with?the?conditions?of?probation.

Thereafter,?the?review?department,?by?a?vote?of?nine?to?five,?adopted?the?decision?of?the?hearing?panel?with?the?exception?that?it?deleted?the?hearing?[54?Cal.3d?137]?panel’s?conclusion?that?petitioner?failed?to?make?restitution.?All?five?of?the?dissenters?believed?the?discipline?was?excessive.?Four?dissenters?recommended?a?three-month?actual?suspension?with?a?one-year?extension?of?probation,?and?the?fifth?dissenter?recommended?a?three-month?actual?suspension?without?an?extension?of?probation.

  1. Discussion

Petitioner?raises?a?number?of?objections?to?the?State?Bar’s?conclusions.?As?we?explain,?petitioner’s?claims?lack?merit.?We?conclude?the?review?department?recommended?the?correct?discipline?under?the?facts.

  1. Notice
[1]?Petitioner?contends?the?hearing?panel?abused?its?discretion?when?it?denied?his?motion?to?set?aside?his?default?in?failing?to?appear?at?the?show?cause?hearing.?He?claims?that?a?second?notice?to?show?cause?issued?by?the?State?Bar?erroneously?led?him?to?believe?that?he?was?not?required?to?respond?to?the?original?notice.?Petitioner?asserts?that?he?was?misled?by?a?clerk?of?the?State?Bar?Court?who?apparently?told?him?that?the?second?notice?to?show?cause?would?”combine?the?original?allegation?of?failure?to?file?a?timely?probation?report?with?a?second?allegation?of?the?late?restitution?payment.”?Petitioner?claims?that?based?on?the?representation?of?the?clerk?and?the?”overlapping?orders”?of?the?State?Bar,?he?did?not?understand?that?he?would?be?in?default?if?he?did?not?file?an?answer?to?the?original?notice?to?show?cause,?and?he?thus?had?no?opportunity?to?present?mitigating?evidence?(apparently?to?explain?the?default)?to?the?State?Bar.?The?record?shows,?however,?petitioner?was?not?misled?as?to?his?responsibilities?in?this?regard.

As?the?State?Bar?observes,?the?initial?notice?to?show?cause?charged?petitioner?with?violating?the?conditions?of?his?probation?because?he?failed?to?file?an?October?1988?probation?report.?Petitioner?eventually?filed?a?report?(in?late?November)?that?did?not?comply?with?the?terms?of?our?1986?order.?Although?petitioner?was?notified?of?the?deficiency,?he?failed?to?submit?an?amended?report.?In?addition,?the?record?shows?that?petitioner?chose?to?ignore?several?notices?regarding?his?noncompliance?with?the?original?notice?to?show?cause.?Accordingly,?his?assertion?that?he?was?”misled”?by?the?notices?is?meritless.

  1. Aggravating?Evidence
[2]?Petitioner?contends?he?was?prejudiced?by?the?fact?that?the?hearing?panel?incorrectly?considered?as?an?aggravating?factor?his?failure?to?make?timely?restitution?to?several?former?clients?as?required?by?our?1986?order.?[54?Cal.3d?138]?He?asserts:?”In?fact,?by?the?time?the?original?statement?of?decision?was?decided,?full?restitution?had?been?made?to?each?client.”?Petitioner?is?incorrect?in?asserting?that?full?restitution?had?been?made?before?the?hearing?panel’s?decision?was?filed?with?the?State?Bar?Court.?Indeed,?in?his?declaration?in?support?of?the?motion?to?set?aside?the?default,?petitioner?admits?that?full?restitution?was?not?made?until?May?30,?1989,?nearly?15?days?after?the?hearing?panel’s?decision?was?filed.?Thus,?although?it?would?have?been?improper?for?the?hearing?panel?to?use?petitioner’s?failure?to?pay?restitution?as?an?independent?ground?of?discipline,?such?misconduct?was?properly?considered?as?establishing?a?circumstance?in?aggravation.?(Edwards?v.?State?Bar?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?28,?36?[276?Cal.Rptr.?153,?801?P.2d?396].)

In?any?event,?as?we?explained,?the?review?department?did?not?consider?petitioner’s?failure?to?make?timely?restitution?as?a?factor?in?aggravation?when?it?adopted?the?hearing?panel’s?recommended?discipline.?Accordingly,?petitioner’s?contention?is?without?merit.

  1. Excessive?Discipline
[3a]?Petitioner?asserts?that?two?years’?actual?suspension?for?the?failure?to?file?a?probation?report?that?complied?with?the?”precise?language”?of?our?order?is?excessive?because?he:?(i)?filed?a?timely?report?indicating?he?”was?complying?with?all?the?terms?and?conditions?of?his?probation,”?(ii)?complied?with?every?other?condition?of?his?probation,?(iii)?timely?responded?to?the?second?order?to?show?cause?and?presented?extensive?evidence?of?circumstances?in?mitigation?that?”would?warrant?that?any?proposed?discipline?not?include?any?further?actual?suspension,”?and?(iv)?has?performed?substantial?pro?bono?work?and?is?active?in?community?volunteer?work.?In?addition,?petitioner?argues?that?a?member?of?the?review?department?should?have?abstained?from?voting?on?the?hearing?panel’s?recommended?discipline?because?he?was?appointed?as?the?referee?to?decide?petitioner’s?motion?to?set?aside?the?default?judgment,?which?was?denied?without?a?hearing.?Petitioner?makes?several?requests?for?alternative?relief,?namely:?that?a?mitigation?hearing?be?held?before?a?judge?of?the?State?Bar?Court,?or?that?an?extended?period?of?probation?without?actual?suspension?be?imposed.?As?we?explain,?we?find?petitioner’s?contentions?to?be?without?merit.

The?scope?of?our?review?is?well?established.?[4]?The?recommendation?of?the?review?department,?while?not?binding?on?this?court,?is?entitled?to?great?weight.?(Ainsworth?v.?State?Bar?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1218,?1233?[252?Cal.Rptr.?267,?762?P.2d?431,?86?A.L.R.4th?1053].)?The?burden?is?on?petitioner?to?show?the?findings?are?not?supported?by?the?evidence?or?that?the?review?department?recommendation?is?erroneous.?(Chefsky?v.?State?Bar?(1984)?36?Cal.3d?116,?121?[202?Cal.Rptr.?349,?680?P.2d?82].)?To?meet?his?burden,?petitioner?must?[54?Cal.3d?139]?demonstrate?that?the?charges?of?misconduct?are?not?supported?by?clear?and?convincing?proof.?(Ibid.)

[3b]?Petitioner?has?failed?to?carry?his?burden.?In?our?view,?the?review?department?correctly?determined?that?petitioner?willfully?failed?to?comply?with?the?terms?of?his?probation?after?he?was?given?ample?opportunity?by?the?State?Bar.?Our?1986?order?stayed?execution?of?suspension?on?the?condition?that?petitioner?comply?with?specified?terms?and?conditions?of?probation.?Although?petitioner?attempts?to?minimize?his?probation?violation?and?subsequent?misconduct?with?respect?to?the?default?proceedings,?his?failure?to?abide?by?the?terms?and?conditions?of?his?probation?is?a?serious?violation,?warranting?the?review?department’s?recommendation?that?our?1986?order?staying?suspension?be?set?aside.?(Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?955(e);?Barnum?v.?State?Bar?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?104,?107?[276?Cal.Rptr.?147,?801?P.2d?390]?[probation?breach?amounts?to?indifference?toward?rectification].)

  1. Conclusion

After?an?independent?review,?we?conclude?the?review?department’s?recommendation?revoking?probation?and?lifting?the?stay?on?two?years’?actual?suspension?is?sound.?Accordingly,?we?adopt?the?recommendation?as?our?own?and?order?that?petitioner’s?probation?be?revoked?and?that?he?commence?the?remaining?period?of?his?suspension?and?comply?with?the?other?conditions?of?our?order?in?State?Bar?Misc.?No.?5066.

This?order?is?effective?upon?finality?of?this?decision?in?this?court.?(See?Cal.?Rules?of?Court,?rule?953(a).)

FN?1.?The?hearing?panel?further?recommended?that?petitioner?be?enrolled?in?involuntary?inactive?status?pursuant?to?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?6007,?subdivision?(d).?This?recommendation?apparently?was?not?adopted?by?the?review?department.