1993) (failure to perform services for client and pattern of neglect of client matters causing injury to client together with default in proceedings and evidence of prior discipline warrant three-year suspension); People v. Anderson, 817 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991) (attorney's misconduct in failing to respond to discovery requests, in leaving practice without properly withdrawing from cases or filing change of address, in failing to timely prepare a written judgment, and in failing to prevent dismissal of case for failure to prosecute, was mitigated by absence of a history of discipline and warranted three-year suspension); People v. Dash, 811 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1991) (three-year suspension was appropriate where attorney's misconduct involved an extensive and longstanding pattern of neglect and misrepresentation in client matters and grievance proceedings, but was mitigated by emotional problems and absence of prior discipline); People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1990) (failure to file personal injury claim resulting in running of statute of limitations, warrants three-year suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon satisfaction of legal malpractice judgment). On the other hand, disbarment is generally warranted when "(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client."

The factual findings of the hearing board are binding on us unless, after consideration of the record as a whole, we conclude that the findings are clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840, 842 (Colo. 1990). The record in this case amply supports the hearing board's findings of fact which are as follows.

See People v. Ashley, 796 P.2d 962 (Colo. 1990); People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1990). The respondent's most recent discipline occurred when he was suspended in 1980 for six months.

1989). If the respondent had displayed a pattern of misconduct with respect to other client matters, or had a history of discipline, or if actual harm to the client had been proved, we would reject the recommended thirty day suspension as too lenient. See, e.g., People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1990) (failure to file personal injury claim on behalf of clients which results in running of statute of limitations warrants three-year suspension); People v. Yaklich, 744 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1987) (neglect of important matter and failure to carry out client's objective warrants two-year suspension); People v. Lloyd, 696 P.2d 249 (Colo.

People v. Sullivan, 802 P.2d 1091, 1094 (Colo. 1990); People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840, 842 (Colo. 1990). "In determining whether the board's findings are supported by substantial evidence, it is not within the province of this court to measure the weight of the evidence or to resolve the credibility of witnesses."

The factual findings of the hearing board are binding on us unless, after consideration of the record as a whole, we conclude that the findings are clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840, 842 (Colo. 1990). The board specifically found that there was no evidence that alcohol abuse contributed to any of the misconduct admitted in this proceeding.