What is the legal test for disbarring a lawyer who misappropriated client funds but presented mitigating evidence?

After independent review, we are of the opinion that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the review department are sound and adopt them as our [786 P.2d 365] own, except in the following particular: petitioner's misconduct did not amount to wilful violation of the "duties" of Business and Professions Code section 6103; that provision defines no duties (Baker v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 804, 815, 263 Cal.Rptr. 798, 781 P.2d 1344).

We are also of the opinion that the recommendation of disbarment made by the review department is without adequate support and must accordingly be rejected. As we have explained, in view of the purpose of attorney discipline, disbarment would be excessive and may not properly be imposed. To protect the public, the courts, and the profession, it is sufficient to 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 three years. (Compare Weller v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 670, 262 Cal.Rptr. 549, 779 P.2d 293 [imposing similar discipline: attorney misappropriated clients' funds but presented significant mitigating evidence].)