blic from persons unfit to practice law ( In re Vaughan (1922) 189 Cal. 491, 495-496 [ 209 P. 353, 24 A.L.R. 858]; In re Rothrock (1940) 16 Cal.2d 449, 454 [ 106 P.2d 907, 131 A.L.R. 226]; Best v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 633, 637 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 589, 371 P.2d 325]; Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 790-791 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d 521], fn. 1; Black v. State Bar (1972) 7 Cal.3d 676, 686 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 288, 499 P.2d 968]; Emslie v. State Bar, supra, 11 Cal.3d, p. 225; Wong v. State Bar (1975) 15 Cal.3d 528, 531 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 482, 542 P.2d 642]; Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 886 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 793, 544 P.2d 929]). Thus, an attorney who is the subject of a State Bar disciplinary proceeding does not have a right to a jury trial ( Johnson v. State Bar (1935) 4 Cal.2d 744, 758 [ 52 P.2d 928]; In reWharton (1896) 114 Cal. 367, 370 [ 46 P. 172]), and the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence sufficient to sustain a charge to a reasonable certainty ( Medoff v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 535, 550 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800]). Petitioner contends he was denied his constitutional right to a trial by jury (U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 3, and Amends.
(Cf. Medoff v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 535, 550 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800].)
(10) The fact that respondent testified before the committee gives special weight to its acceptance of his credibility. ( Medoff v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 535, 546 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800].) The disciplinary board, which did not see or hear respondent testify, made findings of fact that differ only in minor details from those of the administrative committee.
( Trusty v. State Bar (1940) 16 Cal.2d 550, 551-552 [ 107 P.2d 10]; Bruns v. State Bar (1941) 18 Cal.2d 667, 668 [ 117 P.2d 327].) (4) Although we give great weight to the local committee's findings that resolve conflicts in the testimony ( Medoff v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 535, 546 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800]; Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 790 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d 521]), both the board and this court reach an independent judgment on the record before it. (Bus.
(Cf. Medoff v. State Bar, 71 Cal.2d 535, 546 [3] [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800].)
Under such circumstances this court is ordinarily reluctant to reverse the committee's decision. ( Medoff v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 535, 546 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800].) (1b) The situation presented here is most unusual.
See also Dorsey v. Kingsland, supra note 18, 84 U.S.App.D.C. at 265-266, 173 F.2d at 406-407. For example, "clear preponderance" of the evidence, In re Hertz, 139 Minn. 504, 166 N.W. 397, 408 (1918); State v. Gudmundsen, 145 Neb. 324, 16 N.W.2d 474, 476 (1944); In re Little, 40 Wash.2d 421, 244 P.2d 255, 260 (1953); In re Hendricks, 155 W.Va. 516, 185 S.E.2d 336, 342 (1971); "clear and convincing evidence" Medoff v. State Bar of California, 71 Cal.2d 535, 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800, 810 (1969); Bar Assoc. of Baltimore City v. Marshall, 269 Md. 510, 307 A.2d 677, 681 (1973); State Board v. Dodge, 93 Minn. 160, 100 N.W. 684, 689 (1904); In re Otterness, 181 Minn. 254, 232 N.W. 318, 319, 73 A.L.R. 1319 (1930); In re Martin, 67 N.Mex. 276, 354 P.2d 995, 998 (1960); "clearly established" and similar expressions, Bodisco v. State Bar of California, 58 Cal.2d 495, 24 Cal.Rptr. 835, 374 P.2d 803, 805 (1962); Gordon v. Clinkscales, 215 Ga. 843, 114 S.E.2d 15, 21 (1960); People v. Kerker, 315 Ill. 572, 146 N.E. 439 (1925); In re Lemisch, 321 Pa. 110, 184 A. 72, 74 (1936).Hurst v. Bar Rules Comm., 202 Ark. 1101, 155 S.W.2d 697, 701 (1941); In re Trask, 46 Hawaii 404, 380 P.2d 751, 755-756 (1963); In re Posler, 390 Mich. 581, 213 N.W.2d 133 (1973); In re Krehel, 419 Pa. 86, 213 A.2d 375, 376-377 (1965); In re Wright, 131 Vt. 473, 310 A.2d 1, 9-10 (1973).
To establish a "flexible" rule permitting ex parte communication absent a court order would seriously undercut the ability of corporate counsel to represent their client. (See Mitton v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 525, 534 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 696, 455 P.2d 800].) Because on this record we cannot conclude privileged information was divulged, we here emphasize the potential.