Petitioner attorney challenged a decision of respondent the State Bar of California.

 Petitioner attorney challenged a decision of respondent, the State Bar of California, whose disciplinary board suspended petitioner from practicing law for a period of three years with provisions that the suspension be stayed after four months, after petitioner stipulated to several forms of misconduct.

Petitioner attorney stipulated to several forms of misconduct, and respondent State Bar of California's disciplinary board suspended petitioner from the practice of law for three years, with provisions that the suspension be stayed after four months. Petitioner subsequently sought review of respondent's decision, alleging that the evidence failed to show that his actions were wilful, as required by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6067, 6068, 6103, and 6106, and that a four month suspension was contradictory and improper, as it would only worsen his financial condition and make it difficult for him to establish the necessary orderly office procedures. lawyers class action On appeal, the court affirmed, stating that where a pattern of habitual offenses exists, even though the offenses may individually amount to only negligence or gross negligence, such consistent misconduct can only be regarded as deliberate and wilful. Further, stating that it attached great weight to the disciplinary recommendations of the respondent's disciplinary board, the court found that the partially stayed suspension imposed upon the petitioner was not improper.

The court affirmed petitioner attorney's suspension, finding that a pattern of habitual offenses existed and that even though the offenses may have individually amounted to only negligence or gross negligence, the consistent misconduct was properly regarded as deliberate and wilful. Further, the court found that the partially stayed suspension imposed upon the petitioner was not improper.

Petitioner attorney sought review of a recommendation for suspension by respondent Board of Governors of the State Bar (California).

The attorney, who specialized in criminal defense, entered into a joint venture with one of his former clients to sell royalty interests on a contract for the manufacture and sale of baby cribs, and a gold transaction to cover the losses on the crib contract. The victim who contributed to these schemes lost substantial sums of money. The attorney was convicted of selling securities without a permit. The state bar determined that the attorney made fraudulent representations in commission of the crime and that such conduct involved moral turpitude. The state bar recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law. On review, the court affirmed. The court concluded that the attorney failed to show that the findings of the state bar were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the attorney need not personally gain by his conduct in order for his actions to involve moral turpitude. Further, it appeared that the attorney gained indirectly from the misrepresentations made. The court determined that pending criminal charges, in addition to the charge of which the attorney was convicted, could be considered in resolving the question of moral turpitude.

The court affirmed the one-year suspension of the attorney.