PUBLIC MATTER NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION — Filed April 24, 2017 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA REVIEW DEPARTMENT In the Matter of Case No. 14-O-05418 ) ) ALBERT MIKLOS KUN, OPINION ) ) A Member of the State Bar, No. 55820. ) ) A hearing judge found Albert Miklos Kun culpable of three counts of misconduct: failure to maintain client funds in his trust account, misappropriation by gross negligence of a $460 filing fee, and commingling. Kun has two prior discipline cases from 2002 (Kun and 2004 I) (Kun After weighing factors in aggravation and mitigation, the judge considered II). standard 1.8(b), which provides for disbarment, under certain circumstances, when an attorney has two or more prior disciplines. However, the hearing judge declined to recommend disbarment, deeming it excessive because, among other things, more than 10 years had passed discipline case, his misconduct occurred during three distinct periods and each since Kun’s last was not prolonged, and he received only a public reproval in and a 30-day suspension in Kun I Therefore, the judge recommended discipline that included a one-year actual suspension Kun II. to continue until Kun pays restitution to his client. Both Kun and the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) appeal. Kun seeks a dismissal of all charges, contending that OCTC did not prove his culpability and the amount misappropriated was insignificantly small. He also argues for more mitigation. OCTC asks that we affirm the hearing culpability findings, and seeks additional aggravation. judge’s Although OCTC sought a minimum of two actual suspension in both pretrial and posttrial years’
PUBLIC MATTER — NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Filed April 24, 2017 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA REVIEW DEPARTMENT In the Matter of ALBERT MIKLOS KUN, A Member of the State Bar, No. 55820. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 14-O-05418 OPINION A hearing judge found Albert Miklos Kun culpable of three counts of misconduct: failure to maintain client funds in his trust account, misappropriation by gross negligence of a $460 filing fee, and commingling. Kun has two prior discipline cases from 2002 (Kun I) and 2004 (Kun II). After weighing factors in aggravation and mitigation, the judge considered standard 1.8(b), which provides for disbarment, under certain circumstances, when an attorney has two or more prior disciplines. However, the hearing judge declined to recommend disbarment, deeming it excessive because, among other things, more than 10 years had passed since Kun’s last discipline case, his misconduct occurred during three distinct periods and each was not prolonged, and he received only a public reproval in Kun I and a 30-day suspension in Kun II. Therefore, the judge recommended discipline that included a one-year actual suspension to continue until Kun pays restitution to his client. Both Kun and the Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) appeal. Kun seeks a dismissal of all charges, contending that OCTC did not prove his culpability and the amount misappropriated was insignificantly small. He also argues for more mitigation. OCTC asks that we affirm the hearing judge’s culpability findings, and seeks additional aggravation. Although OCTC sought a minimum of two years’ actual suspension in both pretrial and posttrial