¶1I concur in the opinion of the majority that the conduct of petitioner merits his suspension from the practice of law. I dissent, however, as to the length of time such suspension should be imposed. Petitioner’s embezzlement appears to have been “cold, calculated and deliberate.” I would adopt the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of California that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.
10 Cal. 3d 742
Bradpiece v. State Bar
Decided February 6, 1974
California Supreme Court · decided 1974-02-06
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1974-02-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently March 1991 · most notably 15 Cal. 3d 878 - Segretti v. State Bar (1976), 11 Cal. 3d 436 - Yokozeki v. State Bar (1974)
157 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →