Martin

We review the recommendation of the State Bar that petitioner Barry B. Martin be disciplined for several instances of professional misconduct. The misconduct included mishandling five matters during a four-year period. In view of the purpose of professional discipline, we conclude the recommendation is appropriate. We therefore suspend petitioner from the practice of law for five years, stay his suspension, and place him on probation for five years on conditions including actual suspension for two years.

Petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in this state on June 23, 1978. He has no record of prior discipline.

*1058 On September 30, 1988, the Office of Trial Counsel of the State Bar (Office) served on petitioner 1 a notice to show cause charging him with five counts of professional misconduct. The notice advised him that a default could be entered if he failed to file a written answer to the notice within 20 days or failed to appear at the formal hearing. The notice also advised him that an entry of default could result in an admission of the charged misconduct and constitute a bar to further participation in the proceedings. On October 31, 1988, the notice to…

Under the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (standards), abandonment of a client’s case subjects an attorney to either suspension or disbarment. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, div. V, stds. 2.6(a) & (b), 2.3.) As the majority observes, petitioner abandoned four matters over four years, substantially harming at least two of the clients (Espinosa and Koshay); he intentionally misled a successor attorney retained by Espinosa; he failed to return Koshay’s watch and told him his case was proceeding when in fact he had failed to file a complaint; and he failed to respond to his clients’ numerous telephone calls and correspondence.

*1065 After the proceedings against him began, petitioner remained as uncooperative with the State Bar as he was with his clients. By declining to appear in the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner has created a record that provides neither explanation for his serious misconduct nor mitigating evidence suggesting his misconduct will not recur.

He may, as unfortunately has been true in many disciplinary proceedings in recent years, suffer from the effects of substance abuse or addiction. He may have a disabling psychological condition…

I join the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice. I write separately to express my dismay over petitioner’s lack of understanding of proper professional conduct. At oral argument, representing himself, petitioner was asked about the Rolex watch he had obtained from his former client. Petitioner responded that no writing exists to support his *1066 theory that it was accepted in lieu of other fees and he denied that it was given to him as evidence. In addition, although he purports to dispute the claim proffered by the State Bar and the client that he was asked for its return, this factual matter was resolved adversely to him and he does not here contest the sufficiency of the State Bar Court’s findings. In my view, not only has petitioner converted this item of personalty for lo these many years, but he had the audacity, when asked of its whereabouts, to reach into his pocket and display it to the court.

A Rolex watch is famous for its ability to perform at great heights and extreme depths. True to its reputation, it evidences here both the height of petitioner’s chicane and the depth of his deception. Petitioner would have benefited more from the use of a moral compass than…