Ring v. State Bar

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar that the petitioner be suspended from practice as an attorney at law for a period of two and one-half years.

The recommendation of the board was based on evidence adduced before the local administrative committee bearing upon five consolidated charges initiated by four complaints filed by, and verified by an officer of, the Los Angeles Bar Association, and by an order to show cause based on a fifth complaint filed and verified by former clients of the petitioner. These complaints involved charges of violations of rules 3 and 9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and subdivisions 4 and 5 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The local committee recommended disbarment, which the board reduced to suspension for the period stated.

The petitioner contends that the complaints were insufficiently verified, first because the verification was made by an officer of the complainant Los Angeles Bar Association, and secondly because the verifications were made on information and belief although the allegations of the complaint are based on the complainant’s knowledge. These contentions are answered contrary to the petitioner’s contentions by the cases of

In re Collins,

147 Cal. 8, 10 [81 Pac. 220], and

Lantz

v.

The State Bar,

212 Cal. 213, 221, 222 [298 Pac. 407]. (See, also,

Herron

v.

The State Bar,

212 Cal. 196 [298 Pac. 474].)

The only other matter for consideration is the petitioner’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings of the Board of Governors. The petitioner does not

[750]

in every instance dispute that the events occurred or the acts were committed from which the board has drawn inferences and deductions unfavorable to the petitioner. What the petitioner does contend is that the board should have believed only the testimony of the petitioner on the conflicting evidence and adopted the petitioner’s view of the correct deductions to be drawn from undisputed facts; also that the board should have accepted the extenuating circumstances offered by the petitioner in complete exoneration of his conduct.