the erroneous factual finding that LeGrande terminated Kun on July 7, 2014. Kun and judge’s OCTC both argue that this aggravation should not be considered because Kun was actually terminated on July 10. We agree, and thus decline to assign aggravation for uncharged misconduct. 4. Requests for Additional Aggravation OCTC’s OCTC asks us to assign additional aggravation for multiple acts. (Std. 1.5(b).) Kun misappropriated his money in dozens of separate withdrawals in less than a month. We client’s find this conduct constitutes multiple acts of wrongdoing, warranting significant aggravation. (In (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 273, 279 [65 improper CTA the Matter of Song withdrawals are multiple acts of misconduct constituting significant aggravation].) OCTC also requests that we assign additional aggravation for failure to make restitution. (Std. 1.5(m).) Kun has not refunded the $460 filing fee to LeGrande, despite her multiple requests and the clear understanding of the parties at the time he was retained that this amount was given to Kun as advance costs. During the investigation, Kun told a State Bar investigator that the $460 remained in his trust account and he could send it the following day, conditioned on having the . . . cleared once and for He has not yet refunded the $460. By the “issue all.” time of trial, he testified that he had converted the $460 to attorney fees, and he did not believe LeGrande was entitled to a refund. Even so, he also testified that the Court tells me that “if I’m legally obligated, then pay it We therefore assign moderate aggravating I’ll back. Okay?” weight for failure to refund the unspent filing fee. (See (1989) Chang v. State Bar Kun’s 49 Cal.3d 114, 124 [failure to reimburse client for misappropriated funds considered as aggravating factor].) We decline request for aggravation for intentional misconduct, dishonesty, and OCTC’s bad faith (std. 1.5(d)) and refusal or inability to account for entrusted funds. (Std. 1.5(m).) Our
the judge’s erroneous factual finding that LeGrande terminated Kun on July 7, 2014. Kun and OCTC both argue that this aggravation should not be considered because Kun was actually terminated on July 10. We agree, and thus decline to assign aggravation for uncharged misconduct. 4. OCTC’s Requests for Additional Aggravation OCTC asks us to assign additional aggravation for multiple acts. (Std. 1.5(b).) Kun misappropriated his client’s money in dozens of separate withdrawals in less than a month. We find this conduct constitutes multiple acts of wrongdoing, warranting significant aggravation. (In the Matter of Song (Review Dept. 2013) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 273, 279 [65 improper CTA withdrawals are multiple acts of misconduct constituting significant aggravation].) OCTC also requests that we assign additional aggravation for failure to make restitution. (Std. 1.5(m).) Kun has not refunded the $460 filing fee to LeGrande, despite her multiple requests and the clear understanding of the parties at the time he was retained that this amount was given to Kun as advance costs. During the investigation, Kun told a State Bar investigator that the $460 remained in his trust account and he could send it the following day, conditioned on having the “issue . . . cleared once and for all.” He has not yet refunded the $460. By the time of trial, he testified that he had converted the $460 to attorney fees, and he did not believe LeGrande was entitled to a refund. Even so, he also testified that “if the Court tells me that I’m legally obligated, then I’ll pay it back. Okay?” We therefore assign moderate aggravating weight for Kun’s failure to refund the unspent filing fee. (See Chang v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 114, 124 [failure to reimburse client for misappropriated funds considered as aggravating factor].) We decline OCTC’s request for aggravation for intentional misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith (std. 1.5(d)) and refusal or inability to account for entrusted funds. (Std. 1.5(m).) Our