When will the California State Bar's local administrative committee and the state bar's board of disciplinary action against petitioner for wilful failure to perform legal services for which the attorney has retained?

We have repeatedly stated that willful failure to perform legal services for which an attorney has been retained in itself warrants disciplinary action, constituting a breach of the good faith and fiduciary duty owed by the attorney to his clients (Alkow v. State Bar (1971) 3 [16 Cal.3d 709] Cal.3d 924, 935, 92 Cal.Rptr. 278, 479 P.2d 638; Simmons v. State Bar (1970) 2 Cal.3d 719,

Page 111

Both the local administrative committee and the board unanimously recommended that petitioner be suspended for three years with only the first six months to be served in actual suspension. While their recommendation is entitled to great weight, it is not binding on this court which has the power to weigh and pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, and, if justified, to impose more servere discipline than that recommended (Silver v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 134, 147, 117 Cal.Rptr. 821, 528 P.2d 1157; Glickman v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 179, 184, 107 Cal.Rptr. 65, 507 P.2d 953.)

A petitioner's prior record may properly be considered in determining the appropriate discipline (Eschwig v. State Bar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 8, 18, 81 Cal.Rptr. 352, 459 P.2d 904). It is particularly significant in the present case that petitioner has previously been suspended for a two-year period, including six months of actual suspension, for improper use of clients' funds.