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.…