Cain v. State Bar

• Decision Date: 16 June 1978
• Citation: 579 P.2d 1053,21 Cal.3d 523,146 Cal.Rptr. 737
• Parties: , 579 P.2d 1053 Carl L. CAIN, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR of California, Respondent. L.A. 30903.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 737

146 Cal.Rptr. 737

21 Cal.3d 523, 579 P.2d 1053

Carl L. CAIN, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR of California, Respondent.

L.A. 30903.

Supreme Court of California,In Bank.

June 16, 1978.

Carl L. Cain, in pro. per.

Herbert M. Rosenthal and Ronald W. Stovitz, San Francisco, for respondent.

BY THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California (board) that petitioner, admitted to the bar in 1962, be disbarred from the practice of law.

After extensive hearings, at which petitioner was represented by counsel, the board found that petitioner had breached his duties as an attorney in two particulars. Briefly, the record discloses that in 1973 petitioner improperly claimed a lien for $450 upon a workers' compensation award in favor of his client, Lawrence Mitchell. Although petitioner testified that the lien represented amounts owing from Mitchell for attorneys' fees and other sums advanced for Mitchell's living expenses, the board (1) noted that the attorneys' fees were incurred in unrelated matters and would not support a lien upon the workers' compensation award, and (2) accepted Mitchell's testimony to the effect that no sums were advanced by petitioner for Mitchell's living expenses. The board's findings, derived from its evaluation of conflicting testimony, are entitled to great weight. (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794, 94 Cal.Rptr. 825, 484 P.2d 993.)

In addition, the board found that petitioner received $3,000 from Mitchell's compensation award and deposited it in his own business bank account and, temporarily at least, converted those funds to his own use. Despite petitioner's contrary testimony, the board's findings of commingling and conversion, similarly, are entitled to great weight.

At petitioner's request, an advisory panel reviewed the recommendations of the board's own hearing body. (See rules 22.10-22.70, Rules Proc. of State Bar.) The advisory panel concurred in the findings and recommendation, and the board adopted the panel's proposed decision without change on November 30, 1976.

In reaching its recommendation of disbarment, the board considered petitioner's prior disciplinary record, which disclosed that in 1972 and 1973 he committed acts of misconduct similar in nature to those involved in the present proceeding, including mismanagement of his client trust account and misappropriation of client funds. As a result of these prior acts, petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for three years effective August 6, 1976, such suspension was stayed subject to six months' actual suspension. Petitioner is therefore currently on probation for acts...