Rosenthal

Rosenthal v. State Bar

Good Law
1987 Cal. LEXIS 383·238 Cal. Rptr. 394·43 Cal. 3d 658·738 P.2d 740
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1987L.A. 32233California2,017 words

Opinion

Opinion

The Review Department of the State Bar Court adopted the findings of the hearing referee and unanimously recommended that petitioner Michael Bernard Rosenthal be disbarred. Petitioner claims that disbarment is excessive for two reasons: (1) he did not have a fair opportunity to present a strong defense at the hearing, and (2) extrinsic mitigating evidence demonstrates that he is not a danger to the public. We find these contentions to be without merit and adopt the recommended discipline.

Stipulation

Petitioner does not dispute that he committed the offenses underlying the review department’s recommendation. In a stipulation negotiated with State Bar Examiner Caryn Espo, petitioner admitted that between August 1981 and August 1983, he misappropriated several thousand dollars belonging to five clients whose personal injury matters he had settled. Petitioner acknowledged that this pattern of activity resulted in five separate violations of rule 8-101 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (wilful failure to maintain client trust account, wilful failure to deliver client funds, and misappropriation), and section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code (wilful commission of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.