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. Findings?of?Fact 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). 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.…