Barnum

Barnum v. State Bar

Good Law
1990 Cal. LEXIS 5483·276 Cal. Rptr. 147·52 Cal. 3d 104·90 Daily Journal DAR 14573·801 P.2d 390
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1990No. S014688California3,293 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

We review the recommendation of the State Bar Court that petitioner Paul Charles Barnum be disbarred from the practice of law.

Petitioner collected an unconscionable fee, willfully disobeyed court orders compelling him to explain or return the fee, and refused to participate in the disciplinary investigation. Although only one client matter is involved, several facts suggest the risk of recurrence is high. Petitioner has been formally disciplined once before for similar misdeeds, which began only five years after admission to the bar and ended only one year before the instant conduct began. Indeed, he was participating in the prior disciplinary proceeding and purportedly expressing remorse at the time these acts occurred. No compelling life or work stresses appear on the record.

Petitioner is not a good candidate for suspension and/or probation. He has breached two separate terms of our prior disciplinary order, leading to the imposition of additional sanctions. He also defaulted before the State Bar here and in one other proceeding. Disbarment is consistent with the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div. V (standards).) We…

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.