California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Grim v. State Bar, 278 Cal.Rptr. 682, 53 Cal.3d 21, 805 P.2d 941 (Cal. 1991):
[53 Cal.3d 30] We recently observed that the term "wilful misappropriation," as used in attorney discipline cases, "covers a broad range of conduct varying significantly in the degree of culpability," and that "[d]isbarment would rarely, if ever, be an appropriate discipline for an attorney whose only misconduct was a single act of negligent misappropriation, unaccompanied by acts of deceit or other aggravating factors." (Edwards v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 28, 38, 276 Cal.Rptr. 153, 801 P.2d 396.) The misappropriation in this case, however, was not the result of carelessness or mistake; petitioner acted deliberately and with full knowledge that the funds belonged to his client. Moreover, the evidence supports an inference that petitioner intended to permanently deprive his client of her funds: petitioner repaid the funds only after the passage of almost three years and then only under the pressure of these disciplinary proceedings. Standard 2.2(a) is properly applied to such grave misconduct.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.