The hearing judge found significant aggravation based on indifference toward Kun’s rectification or atonement for his misconduct, as well as a lack of insight. However, we find that indifference warrants only moderate aggravation, as analyzed below. Kun’s The hearing judge found that Kun showed indifference because he argued that he provided services worth the full value of the amount paid by LeGrande and also that the amount of misappropriated funds was nominal. On review, we understand argument as his Kun’s attempt to establish that the $460 he misappropriated was to “insignificantly small,” according the language from standard 2.1(a). But, as previously noted, this standard addresses intentional misappropriation, which is not at issue here. Since Kun has the right to vigorously defend himself (In (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 209), we do not consider this argument to re Morse demonstrate his indifference or unwillingness to conform to his ethical responsibilities. Nonetheless, the record reveals other evidence that establishes moderate indifference by Kun. First, he attempted to shift blame to his client. (In (Review Dept. the Matter of Wolff 2006) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, 14 [attorney who fails to accept responsibility for actions and instead seeks to shift responsibility to others demonstrates indifference and lack of remorse].) He minimized his wrongdoing and the resulting harm to LeGrande, testifying that she only filed a complaint with the State Bar because she knew that he had previously been disciplined and she thought she could use the Bar a the law does not require false “as collection agency.” While penitence, it does require that Kun accept responsibility for his misconduct and come to grips with his culpability. (In (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 502, the Matter of Katz 511.) He has not done this. 3. No Aggravation for Uncharged Misconduct (Std. 1.5(h)) The hearing judge assigned aggravation for uncharged misconduct, finding that Kun failed to refund unearned fees of $1,775. However, as previously stated, this finding is based on
The hearing judge found significant aggravation based on Kun’s indifference toward rectification or atonement for his misconduct, as well as a lack of insight. However, we find that Kun’s indifference warrants only moderate aggravation, as analyzed below. The hearing judge found that Kun showed indifference because he argued that he provided services worth the full value of the amount paid by LeGrande and also that the amount of misappropriated funds was nominal. On review, we understand Kun’s argument as his attempt to establish that the $460 he misappropriated was “insignificantly small,” according to the language from standard 2.1(a). But, as previously noted, this standard addresses intentional misappropriation, which is not at issue here. Since Kun has the right to vigorously defend himself (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 209), we do not consider this argument to demonstrate his indifference or unwillingness to conform to his ethical responsibilities. Nonetheless, the record reveals other evidence that establishes moderate indifference by Kun. First, he attempted to shift blame to his client. (In the Matter of Wolff (Review Dept. 2006) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 1, 14 [attorney who fails to accept responsibility for actions and instead seeks to shift responsibility to others demonstrates indifference and lack of remorse].) He minimized his wrongdoing and the resulting harm to LeGrande, testifying that she only filed a complaint with the State Bar because she knew that he had previously been disciplined and she thought she could use the Bar “as a collection agency.” While the law does not require false penitence, it does require that Kun accept responsibility for his misconduct and come to grips with his culpability. (In the Matter of Katz (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 502, 511.) He has not done this. 3. No Aggravation for Uncharged Misconduct (Std. 1.5(h)) The hearing judge assigned aggravation for uncharged misconduct, finding that Kun failed to refund unearned fees of $1,775. However, as previously stated, this finding is based on