Bate

Bate v. State Bar

Good Law
196 Cal. Rptr. 209·1983 Cal. LEXIS 250·34 Cal. 3d 920·671 P.2d 360
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 10, 1983L.A. 31686California1,433 words

Opinion

Opinion

Petitioner Randle Bate was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1969, and has no prior disciplinary record. In October 1980, the State Bar charged petitioner with wilfully misappropriating monies entrusted to him by two separate clients. The State Bar Review Department recommends that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years and that execution of suspension be stayed and petitioner placed on probation for five years with actual suspension for the first three years, and other specified conditions.

Petitioner sought review of the bar’s recommendation after being advised that we were considering imposition of more severe discipline. Although petitioner concedes that he wilfully misappropriated a client’s funds, he contends that the discipline recommended by the review department is adequate and should not be increased by us.

We conclude that although the review department’s recommendation regarding the period of suspension and probation is adequate, it should be supplemented by requiring that petitioner make restitution in the sum of $2,221.15 to his client, Paula H. (H.).

Facts

Petitioner, a practicing attorney in the Los…

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.