In January, 1939, Clifford A. Rohe, an attorney at law of this state, was notified to appear before Local Administrative Committee Number Seven of the State Bar of Los Angeles County and show cause why he should not be disciplined for professional misconduct arising out of his activities, in connection with a claim of his client, Miss Carlotta Monti, against' W. C. Fields. The attorney filed an answer to the charges and after hearings the local committee made findings and recommended suspension from practice for a period of three months. After argument before it, the Board of Governors adopted the findings of the local committee and recommended to this court that the attorney be disbarred. The attorney is before this court as petitioner in a proceeding to review the board’s recommendation.

The petitioner was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1888, was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois in 1909, and in California in 1912. He is married and is the father of six children. He has practiced law in Los Angeles County since his admission to the bar of this state. The record shows that on September 29, 1936, he received a public reprimand from the Board of Governors of the State Bar. The proceeding in this instance grows out of the following facts:

Miss Monti signed a letter to Mr. Wright, bearing the same date, stating:

These letters and the signed rolcase were forwarded to Mr. Wright. On December 17, 1937, Mr. Wright sent a check for $5,000 to the petitioner with the following letter of transmittal :

In response to the petitioner’s call, Miss Monti arrived at his office with her sister, received the check for $5,000 and delivered to the petitioner her check for $1250. The petitioner’s testimony was that he exhibited to Miss Monti Mr. Wright’s letter of transmittal. That testimony was contradicted by Miss Monti, who claimed that the petitioner told her he had to settle “without the notes.”

About December 20, 1937, the petitioner received from Mr. Wright the cancelled notes and the receipt evidencing payment of the petitioner’s obligations, with a letter of transmittal which concluded: “We appreciate your cooperation with us concerning the settlement of these matters.”

Shortly thereafter Miss Monti and Mr. Fields were reconciled and Miss Monti testified that she then learned for the first time that the settlement figure had been $6,300. She claimed that she telephoned to the petitioner, made some accusations, and that he denied any knowledge that more than $5,000 was received, but stated that he would make inquiry. He thereupon wrote the following letter to Mr. Wright, bearing date December 24, 1937:

The petitioner testified that Miss Monti claimed that more than $6,300 had been received by Mr. Wright, and that the latter had retained the excess. His explanation for couching his letter of December 24th in the language quoted, however, was that he did not want to intimate to Mr. Wright that “I thought he got more than he had told us, that was the reason I mentioned the amount of the notes. I asked for the information so that I would have a complete file.”

In response to his request he received the following, dated January 5, 1938, signed by Mr. Wright’s brother:

Miss Monti heard nothing further from the petitioner and in October, 1938, brought the matter to the attention of the State Bar. In the meantime she had filed a civil action against the petitioner to recover 75 per cent of the $1300, which action does not appear to have been prosecuted to judgment.

It was the petitioner’s contention during the hearings before the local administrative committee and the Board of Governors, and it is his contention here, that Miss Monti and he had come to an understanding that he should have, in addition to the 25 per cent contingency fee, the benefit of anything in excess of $5,000 which would be necessary to settle the three obligations aggregating $1300. The committee found that the petitioner did not advise Miss Monti, at the time she received from him the $5,000 check, that his obligations had been settled for their face value though he was in receipt of information from Mr. Wright to that effect; that when he wrote the letter of December 24th to Mr. Wright he knew that the full amount of $1300 had been paid in settlement of his obligations. The committee concluded that the petitioner had violated Rule 9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar (prohibiting commingling of client’s and personal funds and requiring prompt report of receipt of client’s property) ; that he had violated his oath and duties as an attorney within the meaning of- subdivision 2 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 6103, State Bar Act), and had committed wrongful acts within the meaning of subdivision 5 of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 6106, State Bar Act).

In its findings the committee called attention to the fact that the petitioner had stated before it that he was willing to pay Miss Monti 75 per cent of the $1300, but that he would not do so under compulsion either of the civil action brought by her or of the State Bar proceeding.

In its recommendations the committee expressed its belief that Miss Monti had been willing that the petitioner should include the three obligations in the negotiations for a settlement of her claim against Mr. Fields, and that he should have the benefit thereof without accounting to her, if they could be settled for a small amount; but that the dispute arose over the fact that the petitioner did not fully or fairly advise her of all steps taken in connection with the settlement of his obligations and that had Miss Monti known that as a result of those negotiations he had received more than double the original fee agreed upon, she would not have authorized the liquidation of his obligations in the manner disclosed.

These findings and conclusions, as qualified by the committee’s analysis in its recommendations, are supported by the record. This is so even though we consider favorably to the petitioner the collateral matters referred to by him and relied upon as showing a motive to cast discredit upon him by the initiation of proceedings before the State Bar. It is a fact that the events herein were not called to the attention of the State Bar for nearly a year after their occurrence. But it is also a fact that in the meantime Miss Monti had brought a civil action against the petitioner. Whatever may have been the instigating factor, or whatever may have been the personal motive, in the initiation of the State Bar proceeding, are not matters of controlling concern in a case where the facts disclosed independently lead to the conclusion that the attorney is subject to some disciplinary action. There is no showing that any personal motives of individuals have generated any pressure or prejudice or have in any way prevented the petitioner from having full, fair and unbiased hearings. However, we are in agreement with the petitioner that under all the circumstances disbarment is too harsh discipline, and that the ends to be subserved by the proceeding herein will be satisfied by a suspension as recommended by the local committee.

It is ordered that the petitioner, Clifford A. Rohe, be suspended from the practice of the law in this state for a period of three months, beginning thirty days from and after the filing of this order.