Egan v. State Bar

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to review a recommendation of the Board of Governors of the State Bar that petitioner, George C. W. Egan, be disbarred. The local administrative committee which heard the charges against him recommended suspension for one year. The examiner who conducted the hearing before the local committee filed a statement, in opposition to the recommendation of the committee, wherein he stated that in his view a reprimand and restitution would constitute the proper disciplinary action.

Petitioner was charged with appropriating to his own use funds collected by him upon a judgment recovered by his client, Mary E. Sheehan, the complaining witness herein. Petitioner has at all times during this proceeding admitted the misappropriation. But he contends that the penalty recommended is “unfair, unjust and unwarranted’ ’. In his petition for the writ of review he states that no proceeding has ever before been taken against him by the State Bar, and that all moneys appropriated by him have now been repaid. He attached to the petition an unverified statement made by Mary E. Sheehan to the effect that full and complete restitution had been made to her. The date of restitution

[460]

does not appear either from the petition for writ of review or from the statement of Mrs. Sheehan. At the time of the hearing before the local committee the funds had not been restored. It is also set forth in Mrs. Sheehan’s statement that petitioner has two minor chidren, who will be without support if he is permanently disbarred. Under our decision in

Allen

v.

State Bar,

218 Cal. 19, 26 [21 Pac. (2d) 107], this statement is not properly a part of the record in this proceeding.

In 1931, at the time of the commission of the offense upon which this action rests, petitioner was forty-three years of age, and had been practicing law in this state for more than twenty-one years. The evidence presented at the hearing before the local committee related entirely to the offense charged. That is, petitioner made no attempt to develop facts relating to his previous record and career as a lawyer, with a view of influencing the committee in its recommendation as to disciplinary action in his case.