Proceeding to review an order of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California recommending that petitioner be suspended from the practice of the law in this state for a period of three months.
This recommendation is based on a finding, made by a local administrative committee and approved by the Board of Governors, that petitioner “is guilty of professional misсonduct by reason of the facts alleged in the first, second and fourth counts of [the] notice to show cause and admitted in the verified answer of [petitioner] on file. ...” Examination of the first count discloses that petitioner was retained by a person admittedly guilty of driving аn automobile while intoxicated, a felony, to procure a reduction of the charge to that of reckless driving, a misdemeanor, to which the offender was to plead guilty, and be released with as small a fine as possible. This was done and petitioner was рaid a fee for his services in procuring the offender’s release. During the course of the employment the offender admitted his guilt to petitioner and admitted that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thereafter, and without his client’s knowledge or consent, petitioner instituted an action for damages against said client on behalf of a person injured by said client in the accident out of which arose the penal charge. It does not appear that petitioner disclosed to the injured persоn his prior professional relations with the offending driver. Upon objection being made to petitioner appearing as cоunsel for the plaintiff in the damage suit, and under direction of the trial court before whom the cause was pending, petitioner withdrew as counsel of record.
The second count involves the same type of misconduct. After being retained to obtain probation for an offender admittedly guilty of assault with intent to commit robbery, and after severing his connection with the offender, petitioner cоmmenced an action for damages on behalf of the victim of the assault against his former client. This was done without the former cliеnt’s knowledge or consent and apparently without disclosing to the injured person petitioner’s prior professional relatiоns with the offender. *332 Again petitioner withdrew from the ease only" after objection had been made and sustained by the court beforе whom the damage suit was pending.
In substance, the fourth count charges that petitioner advised and procured a client to exеcute to him a promissory note and chattel mortgage for the purpose of precluding the client’s wife from obtaining or levying uрon the mortgaged chattel. The transaction was purely fictitious, for at the time of its consummation the client was not indebted to рetitioner. Despite this fact petitioner and his client, in an affidavit attached to the mortgage, averred that it was “made in goоd faith and without any design to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor or creditors”.
Petitioner in his answer filed with the local administrative committеe admitted the material portions of the foregoing charges, but sought to explain his conduct as being singularly free of any wilful intent to dо wrong. As to the two charges first above mentioned he urges that he was retained by two admittedly guilty offenders for a specific purpоse, viz., to procure their release as quickly and as easily as was consistent with orderly procedure. Having accomplishеd his objective in each instance he states that he felt no compunction in subsequently appearing as counsel against said admitted offenders in damage suits arising out of the identical circumstances leading to the penal charges. By his conduct petitioner, a practitioner of many years’ standing, displayed a complete lack of appreciation of the ordinary and accepted canons of professional ethics. Rule 5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (
A reasonable construction of this rule suggests that the subsequent representation of another against a former client is forbiddеn not merely when the attorney
will
be called upon to use confidential information obtained in the course of the former emрloyment, but in every case when, by reason
*333
of such subsequent employment, he
may
be called upon to use such confidential information. In subdivision 5 of section 282 of the Codе of Civil Procedure it is declared to be the duty of an attorney “to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client”. (See, also,
Anderson
v.
Eaton,
Petitioner’s conduct in advising and procuring the execution of a fictitious chattel mortgage, as charged in count four, fоr the purpose of misleading or, as petitioner puts it, “bluffing” an adversary, would seem to fall within the inhibition found in subdivison 4 of section 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where it is declared to be the duty of an attorney “to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causеs confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth. ...”
We are satisfied that the material allegations in counts one, two and four of the order to show cause, as admitted by petitioner in his answer, are ample to sustain the findings of the Board of Governors and we are satisfied with its recommendation. It is therefore ordered that the petitioner herein, W. J. Galbraith, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this state for the period of three months beginning on the tenth day from and after the filing of this order.
Seawell, J., Thompson, J., Preston, J., Langdon, J., and Curtis, J., concurred.