Is there any case law where an attorney did not anticipate that the examiner would recommend disbarred at the close of the hearing?

In essence, petitioner's claim is actually that he did not anticipate that the examiner would recommend, at the close of the hearing, that petitioner be disbarred. It is not necessary, of course, that an attorney be advised that disbarment will be requested. The requirement of notice (Bus. & Prof.Code, 6085) is met by advising him of all of the charges against him. (Dixon v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 728, 737, 187 Cal.Rptr. 30, 653 P.2d 321.) In this case, however, petitioner was on notice that disbarment was contemplated. The examiner testified that he had advised petitioner of the disciplinary possibilities, but that everything he, the examiner, 'ever said was that this is a disbarment case in the absence of strong mitigation. I told him it had to be strong mitigation.' In the opinion of the examiner petitioner had no basis for saying [741 P.2d 213] that he was surprised by the disbarment recommendation. The reality appears to be that petitioner displayed no more diligence in preparing for the hearing than that which he applied to the legal affairs of his clients, and failed to recognize the weakness of his mitigating evidence.