Sampson v. State Bar

• Decision Date: 19 July 1974
• Citation: 524 P.2d 139,12 Cal.3d 70,115 Cal.Rptr. 43
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 524 P.2d 139 Lenard SAMPSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR of California, Respondent. L.A. 30230. In Bank

Page 43

115 Cal.Rptr. 43

12 Cal.3d 70, 524 P.2d 139

Lenard SAMPSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE BAR of California, Respondent.

L.A. 30230.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

July 19, 1974.

Abe Richman, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

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

BY THE COURT.

We review here the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar that petitioner Lenard Sampson be disbarred from the practice of law. Although we conclude that the disciplinary board's findings are, in large part, supported by the evidence, we conclude that the appropriate discipline should be probationary suspension for five years with actual suspension of two years.

These disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 1972, charging that petitioner knowingly submitted false claims to an insurance company, in violation of Insurance Code section 556, ¹ and that petitioner breached standards of professional conduct in the settlement of clients' insurance claims. Petitioner generally denied the allegations against him. A hearing was conducted before Local Administrative Committee No. 48, Los Angeles County.

The state disciplinary board adopted in major part the findings of the local administrative committee. These findings show, as discussed more fully below, that petitioner knowingly filed false insurance claims on behalf of clients purportedly injured in traffic accidents. They also show that in the disposition of these claims, petitioner concluded settlement agreements and signed documents without the authorization of his clients. The disciplinary board also concurred in the local administrative committee's finding that petitioner knowingly submitted false evidence to the committee.

The local committee recommended that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. The disciplinary board rejected this recommendation and instead adopted, by an eight to five margin (two members abstaining), a resolution recommending that petitioner be disbarred; the dissenting votes were recorded as opposed to the severity of the discipline.

Petitioner Sampson asks us to review both the findings and the discipline recommendation of the board. In the review of the findings, we are guided by well-settled principles which we briefly reiterate. The evidence at the local administrative committee's hearing consisted primarily of conflicting testimony. The committee's opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses constrains us to weigh heavily that testimony which supports the committee's findings. (Ridley v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 551, 559, 99 Cal.Rptr. 873, 493 P.2d 105; Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794, 94 Cal.Rptr. 825, 484 P.2d 993; Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 789--790, 51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d 521).

Although we independently review the findings (Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 436, 443, 113 Cal.Rptr. 602, 521 P.2d 858; Schullman v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 526, 529, 111 Cal.Rptr. 161, 516 P.2d 865; Bernstein v. State Bar (1972) 6 Cal.3d 909, 916, 101 Cal.Rptr. 369, 495 P.2d 1289), petitioner must sustain the burden of showing that the disciplinary board's findings are erroneous. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 6083 subd. (c); Belli v. State Bar (1974) 10 Cal.3d 824, 829, 112 Cal.Rptr. 527, 519 P.2d 575; Steiner v. State Bar (1968) 68 Cal.2d 707, 708--709, 68 Cal.Rptr. 729, 441 P.2d 289.) If, however, doubts remain that the charges against petitioner have been proven to a reasonable certainty, close questions will be resolved in petitioner's favor. (Belli v. State Bar, supra, 10 Cal.3d at 829, 112 Cal.Rptr. 527, 519 P.2d 575; Ashe v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 123, 133, 77 Cal.Rptr. 233, 453 P.2d 737; Zitny v. State Bar, supra, 64 Cal.2d at 790, 51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d 521.) Thus, if the proven facts can reasonably support inferences both favorable and adverse to petitioner, 'the inference leading to a conclusion of innocence rather than the one leading to a conclusion of guilt will be accepted.' (Zitny v. State Bar, supra, 64 Cal.2d at 790, 51 Cal.Rptr. at 827, 415 P.2d at 523; see also Himmel v. State Bar, supra, 4 Cal.3d at 794, 94 Cal.Rptr. 825, 484 P.2d 993; Reznik v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 198, 202, 81 Cal.Rptr. 769, 460 P.2d 969.)

1. The findings.

The local administrative committee evaluated petitioner's conduct in the settlement of six personal injury claims arising out of two minor traffic accidents: one accident occurred in November 1969, the other in February 1970. The medical reports utilized to verify the claims arising from both accidents were transmitted to petitioner from the Adams-Crenshaw Medical Center with the signature of Dr. Abe Schuchman. The medical center, which supplied medical care to a large number and variety of patients, was operated, at the time of the incidents in question, by Dr. Schuchman in association with four other doctors. In addition to their professional relationship involving personal injury claimants, petitioner and Dr. Schuchman are close social friends. They have also cooperated in business ventures in the entertainment field.

A. The Seide accident.

In November 1969, a Cadillac driven by Joseph Seide was 'side swiped' by another car; accompanying Seide at the time of the accident were two friends and occasional employees, Herbert Barris and Bruce Baron. Sometime thereafter, Seide contacted petitioner, a friend and business associate, to solicit advice in regard to recovery for damages allegedly sustained in the accident. In January 1970, petitioner sent a letter to Transnational Insurance Company demanding, pursuant to uninsured motorist coverage on the Cadillac, $2,550 on behalf of Seide, Barris and Baron ($850 each) because of injuries suffered in the accident. In support of these claims, petitioner attached reports issued by the Adams-Crenshaw Medical Center and signed by Dr. Schuchman.

Petitioner's subsequent negotiations with Transnational yielded an agreement that each of the three claimants would receive $600 for settlement of his claim. Petitioner executed releases on behalf of the claimants and upon receipt of the settlement drafts issued by Transnational, negotiated these drafts by signing both his and the claimant's name to them; petitioner write the claimants' signatures in a different manner than his own signature. After depositing these funds in his trust account, petitioner issued checks to Barris and Baron in the amount of $200 and credited to himself the sum of $330 which he had previously advanced to Seide as the settlement amount which he would receive. ²

After petitioner's receipt of Transnational's drafts but before checks were issued to Barris and Baron, a strident argument ensued between petitioner and Seide over the settlement negotiated with Transnational. According to Seide, the argument developed because petitioner refused to correct the settlement after being informed that none of the three was treated at the medical center. Seide testified that he had not authorized petitioner's use of his signature and that he was concerned about the amount of the settlement because he felt the driver of the other car was unfairly being sued for $1,800. Petitioner's response, Seide testified, was evasive regarding the inclusion of Barris and Baron in the settlement and was vague in regard to the reason for reimbursements for legal and medical services. Seide testified that when he was unable to obtain petitioner's rectification of the settlement, he contacted the police. After an investigation, however, the district attorney refused to initiate prosecution against petitioner.

Petitioner, on the other hand, testified that Seide confronted him with a demand that petitioner give him (Seide) the $1,200 received from Transnational in settlement of the Barris and Baron claims. According to petitioner, Seide became enraged when petitioner refused and demanded that petitioner give him $25,000 or he would contact the police and claim that the settlement was fraudulent. Petitioner further testified that Seide buttressed his efforts to induce petitioner to pay him the $1,200 by claiming that he could persuade Barris and Baron to testify against petitioner. Dr. Schuchman corroborated petitioner's testimony which indicated that Seide attempted extortion; he testified that Seide made a similar demand of him for $25,000.

Petitioner initially challenges the disciplinary board's finding that the medical documents which he submitted to Transnational contained false information. ³ Seide, Baron and Barris uniformly denied that they had ever been treated for injuries suffered in the accident. Petitioner testified, however, that Seide informed him that the three had secured treatment at the medical center. In addition, Dr. Schuchman and several of his employees testified that Seide, Barris and Baron were in fact at the medical center on the day following the accident. Ms. Caballero, the administrator of the medical center's physical therapy department, also testified that she administered therapy treatments to the three on a number of other occasions in November 1969.

The local administrative committee expressly refused to find that Seide, Barris or Baron had not been treated at the medical center. ⁴ Thus, the testimony of these three witnesses is not a strong basis for evaluating the truth or falsity of the medical reports. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence evaluated by the committee demonstrates that, as determined by the local committee and the state board, certain items on the medical reports were false.

According to the medical reports, Seide, Barris and Baron received X-ray diagnosis for injuries to the neck and back. The medical center's X-ray log, which contained both the patient's name and the service provided him, purported to show that the three had been X-rayed on November 5. Other entries for that date and on surrounding pages, however, differ very...