The opinion
CARTER, J.
— I dissent. While I agree with the majority that the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the local administrative committee and the Board of Governors that petitioner was *304 guilty of unprofessional conduct in his dealings with his client Crumley I am disposed to agree with the discipline recommended by both the administrative committee and the Board of Governors of six months’ suspension rather than the two years’ suspension fixed by the majority of this court.
This court has in numerous cases held that the local administrative committee is m a better position than either the Board of Governors or this court to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion as to what if any discipline should be imposed upon a member of the bar who is guilty of unprofessional conduct (Browne v. State Bar, ante, p. 165 [ 287 P.2d 745 ] (September 28, 1955)), and it seems appropriate to me that when the Board of Governors has approved the discipline recommended by the local administrative committee, this court should accept such recommendation in cases where the record is sufficient to justify discipline. 1 would therefore suspend petitioner from the practice of law for a period of six months.
Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 16, 1955, and the time for commencement of the period of suspension was extended to begin January 19, 1956. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the application should be granted.