Roark v. State Bar

CONREY, J.

This proceeding was instituted to review an order of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California, adopting the findings of local administrative committee No. 3 of San Diego County, and recommending to this

[666]

court that petitioner he disbarred from further practice of the law in this state.

The notice to show cause and amendment thereto contained seven counts charging petitioner with professional misconduct while acting as attorney for the guardian of the estate of Amanda Lindquist, an incompetent person. The committee found that.the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges contained in counts 3, 4 and 6, but found that petitioner was guilty of misconduct in whole or in part as charged in the remaining counts.

Petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the said findings and recommendation and that he was prejudiced by misconduct of one of the examiners acquiesced in'by the committee, as well as by an inadequate consideration of the record on the part of the Board of Governors. Lastly, he pleads that the discipline recommended is too drastic and is unwarranted by the facts and circumstances.

Let it first be said that there is abundant evidence of petitioner’s guilt and there is no doubt as to the commission by him of acts of misconduct of most serious import, even if not to the extent originally charged. The evidence establishes clearly the following facts:

In February, 1919, petitioner was appointed as attorney for the guardian of the estate of Amanda Lindquist, an incompetent person, and he acted in that capacity until death of the incompetent, and thereafter until August, 1933. The estate was a small one and by the year 1928 petitioner had succeeded in converting practically all of the assets thereof into cash, some $4,000. Petitioner thereupon petitioned the San Diego County Superior Court in the matter of said estate and secured its approval to a loan of said $4,000, to be secured by note and mortgage on San Diego real property of a represented value of $12,000. Petitioner and his wife were the borrowers, but petitioner did not inform either the court or the guardian of that fact. He merely told the guardian that the $4,000 had been loaned and that the loan was secured by first mortgage on real property of $12,000 value. Petitioner took the $4,000 for his own use and he and his wife signed a note and mortgage purporting to be a lien on a lot owned by them, designated as lot 14, block E, Burlingame, San Diego. But the mortgage was never recorded nor were note and mortgage ever delivered to the guardian. It was not