Does the Plaintiff have any grounds to excuse or deny that he failed to send to each of the parties the written notice required by rule 955?

Petitioner does not deny that he failed to send to each of the parties the written notice required by rule 955. He seeks to excuse his failure on the grounds, first, that he "substantially" complied with the rule and that actual compliance is not necessary under the authority of Durbin v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 461, 152 Cal.Rptr. 749, 590 P.2d 876. In Durbin the State Bar found that the attorney had, in fact, within the[32 Cal.3d 44] time limits of our order, contacted all of his clients and advised them of his suspension, arranged for substitution of counsel in all pending matters, closed his office, refunded all unearned fees and returned to all clients or their new counsel his files in each pending matter. (See id., at p. 465, 152 Cal.Rptr. 749, 590 P.2d 876.) We nonetheless found that the attorney's failure to file the affidavit required by rule 955 was a wilful violation of the rule warranting six months' suspension, but concluded that because he had complied with subdivision (a) of rule 955, "the recommended discipline of one year additional suspension is too severe." (Id., at p. 469, 152 Cal.Rptr. 749, 590 P.2d 1876.)