Schaefer v. State Bar

THE COURT. This proceeding was instituted to review an order of the board of governors of The State Bar, [368]adopting findings of Los Angeles County Local Administrative Committee Number Six, but increasing its recommendation for punishment from a reprimand to suspension from the practice of the law in this state for a period of six months.

Petitioner’s first point is that the two complaints herein filed were insufficient to confer jurisdiction because certain 'material allegations thereof were based upon information and belief. We find, however, that the pleadings, properly, verified, were in due form, with but one allegation, or paragraph thereof based upon information and belief, relating to alleged representations made by petitioner to a third person, whereas other positive allegations charged petitioner with the appropriation to his own use of moneys belonging to others. Besides, in the recent ease of In re Herron v. The State Bar, ante, p. 196 [298 Pac. 474], it has been definitely held that the procedure under the State Bar Act does not require a verified complaint as a prerequisite to jurisdiction in disciplinary hearings. We shall, therefore, pass to a brief recital of the facts and. a discussion of petitioner’s further contentions that the findings have no support in the evidence and that the penalty is too severe.

Petitioner, during the times in question, was general counsel for the California Pioneer Automobile Club, which • club furnished its members with free legal services and adjustment of accident claims. On August 8, 1927, the automobile of a member, Ishitani, collided with and damaged the automobile of one Gillispie, who carried insurance with the Automobile Club of Southern California for which the complaining witness herein was general counsel. Ishitani consulted petitioner in January, 1928, and upon his representations paid him $85 to be used in settling and procuring a release of said Gillispie claim. In May, 1928," petitioner reached an agreement with said Automobile Club of Southern California to settle the claim for $43 and, pursuant thereto, said club sent him a release duly executed by Gillispie. Petitioner, however, failed to remit the $43 or any other sum and the club later endeavored to collect it direct from Ishitani. Learning then the facts, it brought suit in October, 1929, against petitioner, whereupon he [369]