# Segal v. State Bar

> California Supreme Court · March 31, 1988 · 44 Cal. 3d 1077

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609108

## Case

- **Full name:** LLOYD MARTIN SEGAL, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 31, 1988
- **Citations:** 44 Cal. 3d 1077; 245 Cal. Rptr. 404; 751 P.2d 463; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 68
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lucas
- **Judges:** , Lucas
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609108

## Opinion text

*1090 LUCAS, C. J.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, petitioner’s misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant more severe discipline than that imposed by the majority.
The State Bar hearing panel, which directly heard and evaluated the credibility of petitioner and the other witnesses, recommended a punishment which included three years actual suspension. I would approve that recommendation in light of petitioner’s prior disciplinary record and his present misconduct. (I note that although the Review Department reduced the hearing panel’s recommended punishment to a one-year actual suspension, three of the thirteen members of the department would have imposed greater discipline.)
Petitioner was admitted to practice in 1976. In 1985, he received a 90-day actual suspension (1-year probation) for issuing checks on insufficient funds in 1979 and 1980. His misconduct continued throughout the period from 1982 to 1984. As disclosed in the majority opinion, petitioner’s present misconduct involved four separate matters, and included issuing several more checks on insufficient funds, as well as neglecting clients, failing to perform services, and failing to return unearned fees.
As the majority observes, petitioner tendered no substantial mitigating circumstances, other than the fact that he commenced repaying one bad check before State Bar proceedings were initiated. On the other hand, aggravating circumstances include his prior discipline, and his multiple acts of misconduct in the present proceeding.
I would impose the discipline recommended by the hearing panel, including a period of three years actual suspension.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9609108. Public record. Not legal advice.