## Facts

- John Nicholas Bach was admitted to practice law in California in 1964.
- In 1984, Barbara Hester retained Bach to assist with her divorce and paid him a $3,000 retainer.
- Bach repeatedly failed to communicate with Hester about the status of her matter; despite numerous phone calls and office visits, Hester was unable to reach him.
- Bach claimed he withdrew from the representation, but he did not return the unused portion of the retainer to Hester.
- Hester filed a complaint with the State Bar of California.
- During the investigation, the State Bar sent Bach two successive letters requesting information about Hester’s complaint; Bach did not respond.
- The State Bar issued a notice to show cause, and Bach denied responsibility for the communication problems.
- After a three-day disciplinary hearing, a State Bar referee found that Bach had repeatedly failed to communicate with Hester and had not competently represented her.
- The referee recommended a 12-month suspension, stayed, with probation and 30 days of actual suspension until Bach proved restitution to Hester.
- The Review Department agreed with the findings and the recommended discipline.
- Bach sought review in the Supreme Court of California.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the State Bar Court’s findings that Bach failed to communicate with Hester and failed to provide competent representation in her divorce matter.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Bach failed to return unearned fees to Hester after the representation ended.
3. Whether Bach’s failure to respond to the State Bar’s investigative letters supported discipline and/or affected the sanction.
4. Whether the recommended discipline (a stayed one-year suspension, probation, and 30 days’ actual suspension conditioned on restitution) was appropriate.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California accepted the State Bar Court’s findings that Bach repeatedly failed to communicate with his client and did not competently handle the representation.
- The Court accepted the finding that Bach failed to return the unearned portion of Hester’s retainer.
- The Court treated Bach’s failure to respond to the State Bar’s written inquiries as misconduct relevant to discipline.
- The Court imposed discipline consistent with the State Bar Court’s recommendation: a 12-month suspension stayed, probation, and 30 days of actual suspension, with continued suspension until Bach proved restitution to Hester.

## Legal Principles

- The California Supreme Court has final authority over attorney discipline and may adopt disciplinary recommendations made through State Bar Court proceedings.
- In attorney-discipline review, the Supreme Court independently evaluates the record while giving significant weight to the State Bar Court’s factual determinations.
- An attorney’s repeated failure to communicate with a client about a pending matter constitutes professional misconduct.
- An attorney’s failure to competently perform agreed legal services constitutes professional misconduct and supports suspension and probationary conditions.
- When representation ends, an attorney must return any unearned portion of a client’s fee; retaining unearned fees warrants restitution and may justify conditioning reinstatement or termination of actual suspension on proof of repayment.
- An attorney must cooperate with State Bar investigations; failing to respond to official inquiries is a separate disciplinary violation and may support stronger sanctions.

## Conclusion

Bach v. State Bar of California holds that an attorney who repeatedly fails to communicate with a client and competently handle a divorce matter, keeps unearned fees after the representation ends, and ignores State Bar investigative letters is subject to a stayed suspension with probation, a period of actual suspension, and restitution requirements as a condition of ending the actual suspension.


Bach v. State Bar of California, 805 P.2d 325 (1991)