The Hearing Department and Review Department relied on a line of cases from this court to conclude that Liebb's rehabilitation in custody was entitled to little or no weight. (See Gossage, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1099; In re Menna, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 989 (Menna); Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 939 (Seide); In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116 (Giddens).) But those cases do not establish such a broad rule; instead, they stand for the proposition that evidence of conduct ordinarily required of inmates and parolees usually does not rise to the level of โexemplary conductโ necessary to show rehabilitation.
Prof. Code, ยง 6101, subd. (a); see, e.g., In re Possino (1984) 37 Cal.3d 163 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 543, 689 P.2d 115] [disbarment after conviction of offer to sell 350 pounds of marijuana]; In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166] [disbarment after federal conviction of conspiring to sell large quantities of amphetamines].) (3) Nevertheless, "when we impose discipline we must seek, not to punish the attorney, but to protect the public, the profession, and the courts."
Prof. Code, ยง 6101; see, e.g., In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116 [attorney disbarred for conspiring to distribute amphetamines].) (2) However, the primary purpose of attorney discipline is not the punishment of the attorney; it is the protection of the public, the profession, and the courts.
(See Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 939 ["It is not enough that petitioner kept out of trouble while being watched on probation; he must affirmatively demonstrate over a prolonged period his sincere regret and rehabilitation."]; In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166] [requiring further proof of rehabilitation "during a period when petitioner is neither on parole . . . nor under supervision of the bar."].) Considering that applicant's compulsive gambling began in 1978, shortly after his admission to the New Jersey bar, and that he engaged in a continuous course of professional and criminal misconduct for a period of five years ending only with his arrest in 1983, his five and one-half years of unsupervised good conduct is not a sufficient period of time to demonstrate genuine reform.
(ยง 6101; see, e.g., In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166] [attorney disbarred for conspiring to distribute amphetamines].) (6) "When an attorney's misconduct is the product of a physical or mental disorder, or substance abuse, the attorney bears a heavy burden in demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the precipitating condition has been corrected or its effects overcome insofar as they are related to his fitness to practice.
(See, e.g., In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110.) (2) Unlike disbarment proceedings, in which the State Bar must prove an attorney is unfit to practice, an applicant for certification must show he is morally fit.
(1) Jeoffrey Meacham, admitted to the State Bar in 1975, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine ( 21 U.S.C. ยง 846), a crime involving moral turpitude (cf. In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 111-112 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166]), and was sentenced to a prison term. We placed him on interim suspension effective October 26, 1984.
( Id., at pp. 572-574.) More on point is In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166]. There, disbarment was found appropriate where the attorney lent substantial sums of money to an acquaintance after learning that the money was used to finance illegal drug transactions.
Petitioner's general community reputation vouchsafed by character witnesses, may support his application for readmission, if exemplary behavior is sustained for an extended period of time. ( In re Giddens (1981) 30 Cal.3d 110, 116 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166]; In re Petty (1981) 29 Cal.3d 356, 362 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 461, 627 P.2d 191].) However it does not provide sufficient proof of mitigation in the present proceedings.
Giddens is a man of wide experience: a seaman in the United States Navy, honorably discharged; a soldier in Vietnam, decorated and honorably discharged; the manager of a finance company; a policeman with the Anaheim Police Department; a law student at Western State University in Orange County; a teacher at the same institution, teaching Wills, Trusts, and Contractual Law; the financier of an amphetamine operation, from which he made $7,000; a felon convicted for his part in the distribution of this drug; and a lawyer disbarred in October 1981 for the same offense. In re Giddens, 30 Cal.3d 110, 177 Cal.Rptr. 673, 635 P.2d 166 (1981). At Western, Brownfield had been his student and was later his law clerk.