In re Ellis

Opinion

THE COURT. Following his conviction on two counts of grand theft1 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1), petitioner was placed on interim suspension from the practice of law'by this court in December 1971, and the matter [444]was referred to the State Bar for hearings and recommendation. The local committee, and later the disciplinary board, found substantially the same facts surrounding petitioner’s offense although the board adopted new findings.

Petitioner was admitted to practice in 1954 and has no prior disciplinary record. In May 1968 he assumed the management and presidency of two Los Angeles collection agencies. At the time he undertook control, the agencies possessed trust .fund shortages of approximately $17,000, and within the next two months the shortages increased to almost $60,000, as revealed by an audit of the State Collection Agency Licensing Bureau (hereinafter “bureau”).2 Following the audit, petitioner was informed the trust accounts would have to be reimbursed and that the agencies’ bankruptcy proceedings would not discharge his liability for the deficiencies. Subsequently, by borrowing $120,000,3 petitioner cured the account shortages, and as of November 1968 the books appeared to be in balance.

However, in March 1969 a bureau auditor found the agencies’ bookkeeping systems in disorder and the trust accounts showing deficits of nearly $50,000. The bureau revoked the agencies’ licenses and requested a court-appointed receiver, who succeeded in remunerating trust creditors.4

In November 1968 petitioner passed a bureau examination, entitling him to a certificate as a qualified manager and making him responsible to the bureau for operation of the agencies. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6921.) Petitioner’s conviction was based on shortages occurring after he obtained this certification.

Prior to disposition on the criminal charges, petitioner provided the trial court with numerous letters attesting his good character and positing assurances from many members of the community that misconduct on his part was singular and nonrecurrent and also indicating continued confidence in petitioner’s ability to conduct his affairs responsibly.

[445]