Wells

I dissent because of the facts that the majority opinion here identifies as “certain mitigating circumstances suggesting recent rehabilitative efforts by petitioner.” Those facts have persuaded me that a 30-day actual suspension, in 1978, is a no-longer appropriate and needless punishment for misdeeds that occurred so many years ago. I *716 believe too that requiring the so-called Professional Responsibility Examination to be passed appears irrational in this and many comparable cases.

*711 Opinion

We review recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar that Byron N. Wells be suspended from the practice of law for three months. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6083, subd. (a).) 1

Petitioner is charged with violation of his oath and duties as an attorney (§§ 6103, 6067, 6068), the willful violation of former rules 9 (now rule 8-101, conversion of or commingling a client’s funds) and 11 (now rule 7-101, advising violation of law) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (3B West’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1974 ed., 1977 Cum.Supp.) foll. § 6076), and the commission of acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption (§ 6106).

Petitioner was admitted to practice in 1967. In 1975 he was disciplined for commingling and misappropriating a Ghent’s funds, and thereafter fraudulently concealing his misconduct. He was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one year, but execution of the order was stayed and petitioner was placed on probation for one year on conditions including actual suspension for three months. (Wells v. State Bar (1975) 15 Cal.3d 367 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 218 , 540 P.2d 58 ].)

In 1971 Gerald Weissburg was indicted when he refused on religious…

THE COURT. [*]

We review recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar that Byron N. Wells be suspended from the practice of law for three months. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6083, subd. (a).) [1]

Petitioner is charged with violation of his oath and duties as an attorney (§§ 6103, 6067, 6068), the willful violation of former rules 9 (now rule 8-101, conversion of or commingling a client's funds) and 11 (now rule 7-101, advising violation of law) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (3B West's Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1974 ed., 1977 Cum.Supp.) foll. § 6076), and the commission of acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption (§ 6106).

Petitioner was admitted to practice in 1967. In 1975 he was disciplined for commingling and misappropriating a client's funds, and thereafter fraudulently concealing his misconduct. He was ordered suspended from the practice of law for one year, but execution of the order was stayed and petitioner was placed on probation for one year on conditions including actual suspension for three months. ( Wells v. State Bar (1975) 15 Cal.3d 367 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 218 , 540 P.2d 58 ].)

In 1971 Gerald Weissburg was indicted when he…