Barbee v. State Bar

[297]

THE COURT.

This is a petition to review a recommendation of the board' of governors of The State Bar that petitioner be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of one year. The proceeding was commenced before local administrative committee No. 6, in Los Angeles County, and resulted in a recommendation of disbarment, which was reduced to suspension by order of the board of governors.

Petitioner was tried on three accusations. In the Burns case, the complainant, Mrs. Michael Burns, made charges based upon an action against her husband brought by Walker Collection Service Company, in which petitioner acted as attorney for said husband. Burns later directed petitioner to settle the case, and agreed to pay him a fee of $15. Petitioner negotiated the settlement, and over a considerable period of time received remittances in small sums from his client to be paid over to the adverse party. The committee found that petitioner withheld the sum of $78.50 for some time before finally remitting to the collection company. The committee also found that “at the time respondent was handling said case of Walker’s Collection Service Company against complainant, respondent was handling two other matters for complainant, in which he was making certain payments on behalf of complainant, for report on title, for street assessments, and other items of' minor importance. The evidence as to whether or not complainant furnished the money to respondent with which to make these last mentioned payments is conflicting, but the committee finds that the evidence preponderates in favor of complainant ...” We are not sure that we agree with this statement of the weight of the evidence, but irrespective of this, the complainant admitted, and the committee found that petitioner was representing Mr. and Mrs. Burns in several matters, and handling their accounts with several creditors. His explanation of the delay in making payments is that he was acting in their interests in spreading the small payments received among the various claimants. The whole case appears to us to be a dispute over accounting methods, and perhaps the evidence establishes laxity on the part of petitioner in handling the money. But we find little in the record to justify the conclusion that he

[298]