review department hearing in California

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1991(In re Nadrich, supra, 44 Cal.3d 271, 275 , and cases cited.) “This is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagreed, and the review board itself was closely divided.” (Id. at pp. 275-276.) The offenses of which petitioner was convicted involve moral turpitude; petitioner also stipulated that he violated his oath and duties as an attorney.

1989(In re Nadrich (1988) 44 Cal.3d 271, 276 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 218 , 747 P.2d 1146 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ].) This is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, 5 and the review board itself was divided.

2005(Eschwig v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 8, 19 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 459 P.2d 904 ]; accord, In re Quaid (La. 1994) 646 So.2d 343, 351 .) The Review Department’s analysis also failed to acknowledge that the exception to standard 1.7(a)’s requirement of greater discipline for recidivist *91 attorneys is stated in the conjunctive.

2005(Eschwig v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 8, 19 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 459 P.2d 904 ]; accord, In re Quaid (La. 1994) 646 So.2d 343, 351 .) The Review Department’s analysis also failed to acknowledge that the exception to standard 1.7(a)’s requirement of greater discipline for recidivist *91 attorneys is stated in the conjunctive.

2005(Eschwig v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 8, 19 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 459 P.2d 904 ]; accord, In re Quaid (La. 1994) 646 So.2d 343, 351 .) The Review Department’s analysis also failed to acknowledge that the exception to standard 1.7(a)’s requirement of greater discipline for recidivist *91 attorneys is stated in the conjunctive.

1991(Jackson v. State Bar, supra, 25 Cal.3d 398, 404.) We agree with the review department and the hearing panel that petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards required to establish extreme emotional difficulty as a mitigating factor when he testified that during the period the misconduct occurred, he was undergoing a divorce and suffered emotional strain. {Bowles v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 768 P.2d 65 ].) Petitioner presented no expert testimony regarding his emotional difficulties, apparently did not seek therapy or counseling of any sort, and testi

1991(Jackson v. State Bar, supra, 25 Cal.3d 398, 404.) We agree with the review department and the hearing panel that petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards required to establish extreme emotional difficulty as a mitigating factor when he testified that during the period the misconduct occurred, he was undergoing a divorce and suffered emotional strain. {Bowles v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 768 P.2d 65 ].) Petitioner presented no expert testimony regarding his emotional difficulties, apparently did not seek therapy or counseling of any sort, and testi

1991(Jackson v. State Bar, supra, 25 Cal.3d 398, 404.) We agree with the review department and the hearing panel that petitioner failed to satisfy the evidentiary standards required to establish extreme emotional difficulty as a mitigating factor when he testified that during the period the misconduct occurred, he was undergoing a divorce and suffered emotional strain. {Bowles v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 100, 110 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 768 P.2d 65 ].) Petitioner presented no expert testimony regarding his emotional difficulties, apparently did not seek therapy or counseling of any sort, and testi

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1990(Emslie v. State Bar (1974) 11 Cal.3d 210, 220 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 520 P.2d 991 ]; Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 550 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 168 , 736 P.2d 754 ]; In re Chira (1986) 42 Cal.3d 904, 909 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 727 P.2d 753 ].) Independent review of the record is particularly appropriate when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel have disagreed, and the review department itself is divided.

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Levin v. State Bar (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1140, 1148 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 422 , 767 P.2d 689 ].) “The imposition of attorney discipline does not issue from a fixed formula but from a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” (Rodgers v. State Bar, supra, 48 Cal.3d 300, 316 ; see also, In re Larkin (1989) 48 Cal.3d 236, 244 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 90 , 768 P.2d 604 ]; In re Prantil (1989) 48 Cal.3d 227, 234-235 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 768 P.2d 109 ].) The proper objectives of attorney discipline do not include punishment of the errant attorney; rather, the

1989(Hunniecutt v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 362, 373 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 748 P.2d 1161 ].) We must independently examine the record and exercise our own judgment as to the appropriate discipline (Lawhorn v. *1148 State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357, 1365 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 743 P.2d 908 ]), especially when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree (In re Nadrich, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p.276). 12 In light of section 6106 and the State Bar’s disciplinary standards, 13 it is clear that Levin could be suspended from the practice of law as a result of his dishonest conduct in the H

1989(Hunniecutt v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 362, 373 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 748 P.2d 1161 ].) We must independently examine the record and exercise our own judgment as to the appropriate discipline (Lawhorn v. *1148 State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357, 1365 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 743 P.2d 908 ]), especially when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree (In re Nadrich, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p.276). 12 In light of section 6106 and the State Bar’s disciplinary standards, 13 it is clear that Levin could be suspended from the practice of law as a result of his dishonest conduct in the H

1989(I bid.; see also, Twohy v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 512 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ].) This is especially true when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree.

1989(I bid.; see also, Twohy v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 502, 512 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 794 , 769 P.2d 976 ].) This is especially true when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree.

1989(Hunniecutt v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 362, 373 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 748 P.2d 1161 ].) We must independently examine the record and exercise our own judgment as to the appropriate discipline (Lawhorn v. *1148 State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357, 1365 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 743 P.2d 908 ]), especially when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree (In re Nadrich, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p.276). 12 In light of section 6106 and the State Bar’s disciplinary standards, 13 it is clear that Levin could be suspended from the practice of law as a result of his dishonest conduct in the H

1989(Hunniecutt v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 362, 373 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 699 , 748 P.2d 1161 ].) We must independently examine the record and exercise our own judgment as to the appropriate discipline (Lawhorn v. *1148 State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1357, 1365 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 848 , 743 P.2d 908 ]), especially when, as here, the review department and the hearing panel disagree (In re Nadrich, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p.276). 12 In light of section 6106 and the State Bar’s disciplinary standards, 13 it is clear that Levin could be suspended from the practice of law as a result of his dishonest conduct in the H

1989(Coppock v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 665, 667 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 749 P.2d 1317 ].) We generally give more weight to the factual findings of the hearing panel since *265 it has a better opportunity to observe the testimony of various witnesses.

1989(Coppock v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 665, 667 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 462 , 749 P.2d 1317 ].) We generally give more weight to the factual findings of the hearing panel since *265 it has a better opportunity to observe the testimony of various witnesses.

1989(Gary, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 828; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ]; Mepham, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 948-949.) *961 In the present case, while petitioner was under counseling and medical treatment at the time of the hearing before the referee, he considered himself cured and had withdrawn from treatment by the time of the review department hearing.

1989(Gary, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 828; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ]; Mepham, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 948-949.) *961 In the present case, while petitioner was under counseling and medical treatment at the time of the hearing before the referee, he considered himself cured and had withdrawn from treatment by the time of the review department hearing.

1989(Gary, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 828; Rosenthal v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 658, 664 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 394 , 738 P.2d 740 ]; Mepham, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 948-949.) *961 In the present case, while petitioner was under counseling and medical treatment at the time of the hearing before the referee, he considered himself cured and had withdrawn from treatment by the time of the review department hearing.

1986(See Martin v. State Bar, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 723-724 [one-year actual suspension]; Olguin v. State Bar, supra, 28 Cal.3d at *713 p. 201 [six months' actual suspension]; Lester v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 547, 552 [ 131 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 551 P.2d 841 ] [same].) NOTES [1] This difference in the findings of the review department and the hearing panel may account for the less severe discipline recommended by the review department. [2] Petitioner was present at the court hearing in which the trial court dismissed the Edmonson action.

1986(See Martin v. State Bar, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 723-724 [one-year actual suspension]; Olguin v. State Bar, supra, 28 Cal.3d at *713 p. 201 [six months' actual suspension]; Lester v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 547, 552 [ 131 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 551 P.2d 841 ] [same].) NOTES [1] This difference in the findings of the review department and the hearing panel may account for the less severe discipline recommended by the review department. [2] Petitioner was present at the court hearing in which the trial court dismissed the Edmonson action.

1985(Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ].) Nothing in Mrs. S’s testimony was inherently incredible, while petitioner’s testimony before the hearing panel was fraught with inconsistencies and was seemingly less than candid.

1985(Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ].) Nothing in Mrs. S’s testimony was inherently incredible, while petitioner’s testimony before the hearing panel was fraught with inconsistencies and was seemingly less than candid.