What is the range of discipline available to the California Bar for a breach of rule 5-101 relating to the abandonment of two clients?

In Ritter v. State Bar (1985) 40 Cal.3d 595, 604, footnote 9, 221 Cal.Rptr. 134, 709 P.2d 1303, we noted that violations of rule 5-101 have resulted in a wide range of discipline, ranging from private reproval in Ames v. State Bar (1973) 8 Cal.3d 910, 106 Cal.Rptr. 489, 506 P.2d 625, to two years' actual suspension imposed in Krieger v. State Bar (1954) 43 Cal.2d 604, 275 P.2d 459. More recently, in Beery v. State Bar, supra, 43 Cal.3d 802, 239 Cal.Rptr. 121, 739 P.2d 1289, we imposed two years' actual suspension for a rule 5-101 violation. In addition, the abandonment of two clients is a serious violation meriting discipline; "It is serious misconduct to willfully fail to perform the services for which the attorney is retained ... as it is to willfully fail to communicate with the client...." (Mepham v. State Bar (1986) 42 Cal.3d 943, 949, 232 Cal.Rptr. 152, 728 P.2d 222.)

Petitioner introduced certain mitigating evidence at the hearing, such as his marital problems which have since been resolved, his efforts to [44 Cal.3d 374] mitigate his clients' damages, and his efforts to modify his practice to avoid future problems. The fact that petitioner has no prior disciplinary record is also properly considered in determining the appropriate penalty. (Jackson v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 509, 514, 153 Cal.Rptr. 24, 591 P.2d 47.) The hearing panel's findings indicate that it took these mitigating factors into account in formulating the proper discipline in this case. Viewing the record as a whole, the recommended discipline is appropriate.