Opinion
ARGUELLES, J.
Petitioner Daniel James Conway, admitted to the practice of law in this state in 1979, was involuntarily enrolled as an inactive [1111]*1111member of the bar in January 1988 on the ground that his conduct posed a substantial threat of harm to his clients and the public within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c). We issued a writ of review to consider his contentions that the procedures for such involuntary inactive enrollment denied him due process and that the State Bar’s order was not warranted in his case. Finding no error, we sustain the order enrolling petitioner as an inactive member of the State Bar of California.
Facts
Business and Professions Code section 6007, subdivision (c), first enacted in 1985 (Stats. 1985, ch. 453, § 2, p. 1747), authorizes the Board of Governors of the State Bar to order the involuntary enrollment on inactive status of an attorney whose conduct poses a substantial threat of harm to the attorney’s clients or to the public.1 The statute was adopted to address public concern over the ability of an attorney accused of professional misconduct to continue to practice law and thus potentially cause further harm to additional clients before disciplinary proceedings could be completed. (See Sen. Com. on the Judiciary, Staff Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1275 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) § 3, p. 5.) An inactive member of the State Bar, of course, is not entitled to practice law (§ 6006), and the involuntary enrollment of an attorney on inactive status thus operates as a temporary suspension from the practice of law.
In the present case, petitioner was involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member as a result of conduct apparently attributable to a severe cocaine addiction that began in late 1983 and allegedly reached a peak in 1985 and 1986. No formal disciplinary charges had been brought against petitioner at [1112]*1112the time the involuntary enrollment proceedings were initiated by the State Bar, but 11 matters involving client complaints were pending at the investigation stage and complaints had been filed in another 7 matters.2 Petitioner conceded that his addiction had undermined his personal life and professional career, but contended that he posed no present threat to his clients or the public because he had ceased using the drug. For reasons we will discuss subsequently, the referee presiding over the involuntary enrollment matter was not persuaded.
The referee noted that petitioner admitted several of the allegations against him—including allegations he violated sections 6068 [duties as an attorney] and 6106 [commission of act of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption], as well as rules 2-111 [withdrawal from employment] and 5-101 [avoiding adverse interests] of the Rules of Professional Conduct—and found nine specific instances of misconduct involving eight different clients to be established by the evidence. Based on the evidence of misconduct and other factors, including the high recidivism rate for cocaine addicts and petitioner’s failure to recognize the continuing harm he was even then causing his clients, the referee made the findings required by section 6007, subdivision (c): that petitioner’s conduct had caused substantial harm to his clients and the public; that there was a reasonable likelihood the harm would continue or reoccur; and that the balance of interests between petitioner on the one hand and his clients and the public on the other strongly favored an involuntary inactive enrollment. The referee even suggested that such an order might be. “the only way” to prevent petitioner from causing further serious harm.
By order filed January 8, 1988, effective January 21, 1988, petitioner was involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar. We denied his request for a stay, but subsequently issued a writ of review in accordance with section 6083, subdivision (b), and California Rules of Court, rule 952(c), to consider his broad constitutional and specific fact-based challenges to the order.
[1113]*1113Discussion
We note at the outset that petitioner plainly has a property interest in the right to practice his profession that cannot be taken from him without due process. (Barry v. Barchi (1979) 443 U.S. 55, 64 [61 L.Ed.2d 365, 375, 99 S.Ct. 2642]; Civil Service Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (1978) 22 Cal.3d 552, 560 [150 Cal.Rptr. 129, 586 P.2d 162]; see also Giddens v. State Bar (1981) 28 Cal.3d 730, 735 [170 Cal.Rptr. 812, 621 P.2d 851].) That, of course, is merely the beginning of our inquiry here.
“Once it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is due. . . . [D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494, 92 S.Ct. 2593].) Here again, we start with substantial agreement. “[T]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 333 [47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32, 96 S.Ct. 893], quoting Armstrong v. Manzo (1965) 380 U.S. 545, 552 [14 L.Ed.2d 62, 66, 85 S.Ct. 1187].) Our prior decisions and those of the United States Supreme Court identify the factors to which we look in determining what specific procedural safeguards are dictated by due process in a given situation: “First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” (Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. at p. 335 [47 L.Ed.2d at p. 33]; see also People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 269 [158 Cal.Rptr. 316, 599 P.2d 622]; Civil Service Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 561.)
As this is the first time we have been called upon to consider the validity of the procedures for involuntarily enrolling an active member of the State Bar as an inactive member under section 6007, subdivision (c), we begin with a description of what those procedures actually entail. Thereafter, we turn to the question whether they comport with the principles of due process set forth above.
Procedures for the Involuntary Transfer of an Active Member of the State Bar to Inactive Status
Section 6007, subdivision (c)(3) directed the Board of Governors of the State Bar to formulate and adopt procedural rules to implement the statuto[1114]*1114ry authorization for involuntarily enrolling attorneys meeting the criteria specified in the statute as inactive members of the State Bar. In rules 789 through 798, effective January 1, 1986, the board did so, and those rules thus help to define the parameters of the controversy before us.
The rules first specify generally that such involuntary enrollment proceedings are to be public and they are to be expedited. (Rule 789.) This initial provision thus reflects the statutory goal of preventing harm attributable to the time required for disciplinary proceedings, and the concern with the pace of proceedings is apparent throughout the rules.
The proceeding is commenced by the filing of an application for involuntary inactive enrollment by the Office of Trial Counsel with the Office of the Clerk of the State Bar Court. (Rule 791.) The application must be verified and must set forth “with particularity” the facts allegedly showing that the attorney’s conduct meets the statutory criteria for involuntary inactive enrollment; i.e., that the attorney’s conduct poses a substantial threat of harm to the attorney’s clients or to the public. (Ibid.)
The application must be “promptly” submitted to a single referee appointed by the Presiding Referee of the State Bar Court in accordance with rule 790 and a hearing date set for the matter. (Rule 791.) A copy of the application and all supporting documents must be served by certified mail upon the attorney at the last registered address reflected in the membership records of the State Bar. (Ibid.) Notice of the scheduled hearing date must be given at the same time. (Ibid.) The rules do not explicitly indicate what the hearing date should be, but as they direct the hearing to be held “at the expiration of the [time for the attorney’s response]” (rule 793) and as the proceeding is to be expedited (rule 789), the necessary implication is that the matter be set for hearing on the first available date after expiration of the response time.3 The hearing may be continued once for good cause, but not for more than 10 days. (Rule 795.)
The attorney has 10 days from service of the application, extended in accordance with the provisions of section 6002.1, subdivision (c) for service by certified mail, in which to file a verified response. (Rule 792.) The right to a hearing is waived and none will be held if the attorney does not respond or include with the response a “request that the hearing which has been set pursuant to rule 791 be held” (ibid.), unless the Office of Trial Counsel [1115]*1115makes a timely request for hearing (rule 793(b)) or the referee independently determines that a hearing should be held (rule 793(c)).
The decision of the referee on the application is to be filed and served no later than five days after the hearing or, if no hearing is held, five days after the date set for hearing. (Rule 794.) If the referee determines that the application should be granted, notice of the order is provided to the attorney and to this court in accordance with section 6081 (rule 797), and the attorney has 60 days in which to petition for review of the order (§ 6083, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 952(c)).
Absent from these provisions are any specific directives on the conduct of the proceedings. Rule 796 instead provides: “In proceedings conducted under this chapter [15, commencing with rule 789 and concluding with rule 799 on petitions for retransfer to active status], rules 1-314, 351-414 and 501-534 of these rules shall apply as nearly as may be practicable. All other rules shall be inapplicable to proceedings conducted under this chapter.” Among the rules thus incorporated are the provisions for the issuance of subpoenas (rules 310 through 314), but rendered inapplicable are the other provisions regarding discovery in formal disciplinary proceedings (rules 315 through 324). And, as suggested by the statutory dictate that the decision on the application be “based on all the available evidence, including affidavits” (§ 6007, subd. (c)), rule 556, which provides for the rules of evidence and hence the hearsay rule to be “generally followed” in formal proceedings, is among those not incorporated and thus inapplicable here. We will consider further the import of these rules in the course of addressing petitioner’s contentions.
Do the Procedures for the Involuntary Transfer of an Active Member of the State Bar to Inactive Status Violate Principles of Due Process?
Petitioner challenges the above-described procedures on a variety of related grounds. He complains that the speed with which the hearing is held deprives a charged attorney of a fair opportunity to prepare a defense, that the rules provide no standards for the admissibility of evidence and fail to preserve the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, that the hearing is prejudicial to the conduct of any subsequent formal disciplinary proceedings, that the rules vest inordinate power in a single hearing referee, and that there is no guaranty of a prompt final disposition of disciplinary charges if the attorney is transferred to inactive status. He thus challenges the procedures both on their face and as applied, and in essence asserts, in the customary terminology, that neither the predeprivation hearing nor the postdeprivation procedures are adequate to satisfy the requirements of due process. We cannot agree.
[1116]*11161. Adequacy of Notice
We find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the rules do not offer a charged attorney a fair opportunity to prepare and present a defense. As indicated above, the rules require at least 10 days’ notice of the scheduled hearing date (rules 791-793), and a continuance of an additional 10 days is available under rule 795 upon a showing of good cause. A showing that the necessary preparation for the hearing could not be completed within the initial 10-day period would no doubt constitute good cause (see State Bar Court Rules, rule 1131(d)), and we find it difficult to conceive that an adequate defense could not be mounted in the period of time provided by the rules.4
Moreover, we find it significant that an attorney faced with an application for involuntary inactive enrollment under section 6007, subdivision (c) has far greater rights than petitioner posits or seems to have attempted to employ. Petitioner asserts that the State Bar has the advantage of the power of subpoena to obtain records and that the charged attorney does not. He is wrong. Rules 310 through 314, pertaining to the issuance of subpoenas, explicitly apply to such proceedings. (Rule 796.)
Petitioner suggests that the rules nonetheless fail to guarantee the right secured by section 6085 “to the issuance of subpoenas for attendance of witnesses to appear and testify or produce books and papers . . . .” In this too he is wrong, for section 6086.5 explicitly confirms the authority of the referee in a proceeding under section 6007, subdivision (c) to exercise the power under section 6049, subdivision (a)(3) to “[c]ompel, by subpoena, the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents pertaining to the proceeding.”
Petitioner finally asserts that the time limitations of proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (c) “make the right to subpoena witnesses, in many cases, impracticable and the right to subpoena documents legally impossible.” Petitioner offers no explanation for these assertions—which are, in addition, inexplicably inconsistent with his assertion elsewhere that such rights do not exist in these proceedings—and, in any event, we see no [1117]*1117indication that it was either impracticable or legally impossible to invoke the rights here.
Petitioner also contrasts the rules for involuntary inactive enrollment under section 6007, subdivision (c), with those for the inactive enrollment under section 6007, subdivision (b) of attorneys who, because of mental infirmity or illness or the habitual use of intoxicants or drugs, are unable to perform their duties competently or are unable to practice law without danger to the interests of their clients or the public. Attorneys facing involuntary inactive enrollment under this other statutory provision have greater time to prepare and are entitled to the full range of formal discovery devices specified in rules 310-324. (Rule 643.) Petitioner contends there is no justification for denying these same opportunities to attorneys in proceedings under subdivision (c) of section 6007. Again, we cannot agree.
First, the two subdivisions address quite different problems. In both cases, the underlying goal, of course, is the protection of the public. But proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (b), are aimed at preventing the risk that because of certain specified conditions the attorney may not be able to perform competently or to practice law without some risk of danger to clients or the public. Under subdivision (c), however, the attorney must be found to have already caused, or be causing, substantial harm, and there must be a reasonable threat such harm will recur or continue. The possibility such an attorney’s conduct will endanger his clients or the public is thus far greater than is the case with an attorney falling under the provisions of section 6007, subdivision (b), who may not yet have caused any appreciable harm. We cannot equate the two types of proceedings, and see no lack of justification for the different procedures. Although greater discovery rights and additional preparation time might serve the interests of the charged attorney, the value of such measures in avoiding an erroneous decision at the temporary suspension stage seems marginal at best and the additional time required would significantly increase the risk of the very harm the statute was meant to forestall.
2. Admissibility of Evidence and Examination of Witnesses
Again contrasting proceedings under subdivision (b) of section 6007 with those under subdivision (c), petitioner next objects that the rules governing the latter offer no standards for the admissibility of evidence, that unsubstantiated hearsay is allowed to be the basis of the referee’s decision, and that confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses is not allowed. Our prior observations on the distinct and different purposes of the two types of proceedings apply with equal force here to rebut petitioner’s implicit contention that there is no rational basis for the different [1118]*1118procedures. Nor do we see any denial of due process in the subdivision (c) procedures themselves.
There is no inherent problem with the use of hearsay in bar disciplinary matters. (See Younger v. State Bar (1974) 12 Cal.3d 274, 285 [113 Cal.Rptr. 829, 522 P.2d 5]; Werner v. State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 611, 615 [150 P.2d 892].) The reliability of hearsay may vary widely, and even uncorroborated hearsay, without more, may suffice to support an agency decision, provided that such is permitted by statute. (Walker v. San Gabriel (1942) 20 Cal.2d 879, 881 [129 P.2d 349, 142 A.L.R. 1383].) The command of section 6007, subdivision (c)(2), that the referee’s decision be “based on all the available evidence, including affidavits” we take to be such statutory authorization. And here the referee determined that the hearsay admitted possessed sufficient indicia of reliability that a reasonable person would deem the statements trustworthy. The interest in a prompt decision served by the use of affidavits and hearsay evidence outweighs whatever increase in accuracy of decision might result from a ban on such evidence.
Petitioner’s separate contention that a charged attorney is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses upon whose statements the State Bar relies in seeking the attorney’s involuntary enrollment on inactive status also fails. Although the right of confrontation may be an essential element of due process before a person can be permanently excluded from the practice of law (see, e.g., Willner v. Committee on Character (1963) 373 U.S. 96, 103-104 [10 L.Ed.2d 224, 229-230, 83 S.Ct. 1175, 2 A.L.R.3d 1254]), the hearing that precedes a temporary deprivation of the right to pursue a particular profession need not offer that same opportunity (see, e.g., Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc. (1987) 481 U.S. 252, 266 [95 L.Ed.2d 239, 253, 107 S.Ct. 1740, 1749-1750]; Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 545-546 [84 L.Ed.2d 494, 506, 105 S.Ct. 1487]). The right of confrontation is not a necessary component of due process in the present context.
Moreover, we would note that section 6085 provides, without any explicit exceptions, that “[a]ny person complained against shall. . . have a reasonable opportunity and right: [1J] (a) To defend against the charge by the introduction of evidence, [fl] (b) To be represented by counsel, [fl] (c) To examine and cross-examine witnesses.” We see no indication that this general provision, applicable on its face to all attorney disciplinary proceedings, was not meant to apply to proceedings under section 6007, subdivision (c) as well. Indeed, section 6086.5, as noted previously, expressly indicates that the referee presiding over an involuntary inactive enrollment proceeding has the power under section 6049 to “[cjompel, by subpoena, the atten[1119]*1119dance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents pertaining to the proceeding.”
We need not here decide the consequences of a denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses, as we see no indication that petitioner attempted to exercise the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses or that it would have served the purposes of the hearing. We cannot find a due process violation in the failure to do what petitioner did not ask be done, particularly where no showing is made that a denial of the request, had one been made, would have been improper.5
3. Prejudice in Subsequent Proceedings
Petitioner also contends, albeit briefly and without citation of any authority, that the speed with which the involuntary inactive enrollment proceeding is completed creates a likelihood of prejudice to the attorney’s defense in any subsequent disciplinary proceeding. He does not specify how this prejudice might arise, but simply contends in conclusory fashion that this manner of proceeding fails to comport with due process.
We disagree. Any subsequent disciplinary proceedings are just that—subsequent, and separate, proceedings. Neither the involuntary inactive enrollment order itself nor any of the findings made in those proceedings is binding or has any probative value in the formal disciplinary case.6 The rules are different, as the attorney is entitled to the full range of discovery procedures and has greater opportunity to prepare a substantive defense to the charges; the hearing panel is different; and any final disciplinary order is subject to review not only by the Review Department of the State Bar Court but by this court as well before it takes effect. We can see no potential for prejudice.
[1120]*11204. Hearing Before a Single Referee
Petitioner next takes issue with the use of a single referee to preside over the hearing and decide the application, asserting—yet again with reference to proceedings under subdivision (b) of section 6007—that there is no justification for proceeding in this fashion, for depriving the charged attorney of an appeal to the Review Department of the State Bar Court, or for allowing the involuntary inactive enrollment order to take effect prior to our review. As before, we find no merit to this comparison or to the other aspects of petitioner’s argument.7 It suffices to note that while petitioner may have a right to a hearing before he is prevented from practicing law, he has no right to a particular forum or particular procedures, provided only that the matter is heard by an impartial arbiter under procedures that comport with due process.
5. Prompt Final Disposition of Disciplinary Charges
Having considered petitioner’s contentions in roughly chronological order, we come to what is seemingly his most significant argument: that even if the procedures for placing him involuntarily on inactive status do not violate due process to that point, the failure to guarantee a prompt final disposition of the charges is such a violation and taints the entire proceedings.
In so arguing, petitioner relies mainly on the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Gershenfeld v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Pa. (E.D.Pa. 1986) 641 F.Supp. 1419. That decision held unconstitutional the procedures for the temporary suspension [1121]*1121of Pennsylvania attorneys because the rules specified no time for making a final decision. But petitioner overlooks a significant point: under the Pennsylvania rules, unlike those we consider here, there was no requirement of a hearing before the attorney could be temporarily suspended from the practice of law. In those circumstances, it is plain that a prompt postdeprivation hearing was constitutionally mandated. (Barry v. Barchi, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 66 [61 L.Ed.2d at p. 377].) Quite simply, ours is a different case, for the rules provide for a predeprivation hearing, and one we have held satisfies the requirements of due process at that stage.
Given that the procedures govérning hearings under section 6007, subdivision (c) plainly reduce the time the attorney has to meet the charges against him, however, and give him fewer rights than are enjoyed by attorneys facing adverse action under other statutes, we are persuaded that a final disposition is required at some point to validate the procedures governing the predeprivation hearing. (See Matter of Kenney (1987) 399 Mass. 431 [504 N.E.2d 652, 656].) Indeed, the Legislature, in its most recent amendments to section 6007, subdivision (c) has made it clear that it contemplates just such a further proceeding, calling for expedited treatment of the underlying disciplinary matter if the attorney is placed on inactive status. (New § 6007, subd. (c)(3), added by Stats. 1988, ch. 1159, § 1 [No. 4 Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 4134].)
The State Bar has not yet promulgated rules of procedure to implement this new provision, and we do not believe it wise or appropriate for us to establish any fixed constitutional limits at this juncture. The United States Supreme Court has similarly declined to draw any fixed constitutional boundaries in addressing comparable issues, but its decisions do much to refute petitioner’s contention that the time for completing formal disciplinary proceedings in this state—estimated by him to exceed one year—is unconstitutionally protracted as a matter of law.
In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at page 547 [84 L.Ed.2d at page 507], the Supreme Court held that a delay of nine months between a temporary suspension and a final adjudication was not unconstitutional per se—and so held in the context of presuspension procedures that offered the charged party a simple opportunity to respond that was far short of a full contested evidentiary hearing, such as is contemplated by the rules implementing section 6007, subdivision (c). A fortiori, the potential for a delay of similar magnitude here cannot be deemed unconstitutional on its face.
Most recently, in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen (1988) 486 U.S. 230 [100 L.Ed.2d 265, 108 S.Ct. 1780], the Supreme Court [1122]*1122confirmed that the significance of a postsuspension delay cannot be determined in a vacuum, but must be evaluated under the same due process standards applicable to other aspects of a challenged procedure. And those standards do not support petitioner’s challenge here. Although petitioner plainly has an interest in a prompt decision, he also has an interest, shared by the State Bar and the public, in a correct one. (Id. at p._ [100 L.Ed.2d at pp. 278-279, 108 S.Ct. at p. 1788].)
We need not here attempt to determine when delay in the final disposition of the underlying disciplinary charges would amount to a denial of due process, although we would question whether a time span of more than one year from inception to the decision of the review department could be countenanced in any circumstances.8 We trust the State Bar will take note of the guidance provided by Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. 532, and similar decisions in formulating rules of procedure to implement the legislative mandate to expedite resolution of the underlying charges in these cases.9
The question remains as to what effect the absence of any current regulation should have in the present case. Petitioner argues that because the State Bar had established no definite time limit for the conduct of the formal disciplinary proceedings, the order placing him involuntarily on inactive status was unconstitutional and must be set aside. We cannot agree this is the appropriate remedy. As we have seen, the procedures followed by the State Bar at the involuntary inactive enrollment stage fully satisfied predeprivation constitutional requirements. Insofar as petitioner’s complaint relates to the State Bar’s failure to hold a reasonably prompt, final adjudicative hearing, his remedy is to seek such a hearing and to request that his involuntary enrollment on inactive status be vacated in the event of unconstitutionally improper delay.
[1123]*1123In this case, petitioner, of course, sought review (see ante, p. 1112, fn. 2.) immediately after the involuntary inactive enrollment order was issued, at a time when it was not clear if and when formal disciplinary proceedings would be instituted. The State Bar has advised us that the trial in the formal disciplinary proceeding was originally set to commence on October 11, 1988—less than nine months after the order for petitioner’s involuntary enrollment on inactive status took effect (cf. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 547 [84 L.Ed.2d at p. 507])—and was continued to January 1989 at petitioner’s insistence. In these circumstances, we cannot conclude that petitioner was denied due process.
We thus find no denial of due process in the rules governing proceedings for the involuntary inactive enrollment of attorneys under the provisions of section 6007, subdivision (c), either on their face or as applied in this case. In each instance, the additional measures petitioner would have us require would serve the interest in avoiding an erroneous decision only slightly, if at all, and would frustrate the significant interest of the State Bar and the public in averting the threat of substantial harm. There remains for our consideration only petitioner’s contention that the order in his case was not supported by the evidence.
Did the Evidence Establish That Petitioner Presented a Substantial Threat of Harm to His Clients or the Public?
The statutes do not specify what standard we should employ in reviewing an order of involuntary inactive enrollment, and we have not previously had occasion to address this question. As our review of such orders is provided for in the same statute that permits review of the more familiar orders recommending the suspension or disbarment of attorneys (§ 6083, subds. (a), (b)) and as that statute specifies without distinguishing between the two types of orders that “[u]pon such review the burden is upon the petitioner to show wherein the decision or action is erroneous or unlawful” (§ 6083, subd. (c)), we think it appropriate here to invoke the same standard of review. That is, although we will independently review the evidence and exercise our independent judgment on the propriety of the order, we will view the findings of the referee with great deference. (See, e.g., Kelly v. State Bar (1988) 45 Cal.3d 649, 655 [247 Cal.Rptr. 608, 754 P.2d 1104].)
As noted previously, the referee found nine specific instances of misconduct involving eight different clients to be established by the evidence, including petitioner’s own testimony. We have not previously in this opinion described the scope of petitioner’s misconduct that is reflected in those findings. We do so now.
[1124]*1124(1) Petitioner was retained by Mr. and Mrs. B. to handle a personal injury case. He settled their claims in February 1987 for over $15,000, depositing the settlement funds into his own account and using them for his own benefit. Mr. and Mrs. B. were not paid their funds.
(2) Petitioner settled a personal injury claim for Mr. D. in August 1985. Petitioner deposited the $3,000 settlement check in his own account and used the funds. Mr. D. was not paid his funds.
(3) Petitioner also represented Mr. D. in a contract dispute. Petitioner was given $5,000 to be used to make installment payments to creditors. He misappropriated the funds and did not repay Mr. D., claiming as he did with respect to the settlement check that Mr. D. owed him attorney fees.
(4) Petitioner accepted $200 from Mr. G. to review a contract. He did not do so. Mr. G. sued petitioner in small claims court and won. Petitioner appealed to superior court and lost. He did not pay the judgment.
(5) Mr. L. hired petitioner in a quiet title action. Mr. L. and petitioner got into a fee dispute after a settlement was reached, and petitioner refused to do any further work or to surrender any of the file to Mr. L. or new counsel until a court order was obtained.
(6) Petitioner represented Mrs. M. in a dissolution proceeding. He was directed by the court to prepare a judgment. He did not do so. He was directed to pay opposing counsel $1,430 in sanctions. He did not do so. He was then ordered to pay an additional $1,139 in sanctions, and the court declared petitioner’s conduct to be willful.
(7) Petitioner represented Mr. R. in a personal injury case that was settled in 1985 but failed to pay the $1,405 lien held by Mr. R.’s physician. He paid less than half of the small claims court judgment ultimately obtained by the doctor.
(8) Petitioner was hired by Ms. S. to write a letter to a contractor. He did not do so, and did not pay the $522 small claims court judgment against him obtained by Ms. S.
(9) Mrs. W. hired petitioner to handle a personal injury case. He allegedly settled the case without authority, depositing the $2,500 settlement check in his own account and using the funds for his own benefit. Mrs. W. was not paid her funds.
These findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence, established good cause to believe petitioner guilty of numerous instances of misconduct [1125]*1125and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Petitioner admits as much. Petitioner asserts, however, that his past misconduct was due to his drug addiction, that he was candid in admitting his misconduct, and that his unrebutted evidence of rehabilitation revealed he did not pose a substantial threat of harm to his clients or the public within the meaning of section 6007, subdivision (c). As did the referee, we accept the first assertion, question the second and cannot agree with the third.
Respondent testified at the hearing that his misconduct was due to his admitted cocaine addiction, but asserted that he had been under treatment since February 1987, that he had ceased using cocaine at that time—except for a few “slips”—and that he had ceased using the drug entirely as of July 1987. As further evidence of his new drug-free lifestyle, petitioner pointed to a renewed relationship with his fiancee—who had left him once because of his cocaine usage and testified she would not remain with him if he used drugs—and to his employment of a legal secretary of high ethical character—who testified he would not tolerate any departures from proper conduct and would leave petitioner’s employ if petitioner resumed his drug use. Petitioner thus argued he was no longer a threat to his clients, asserting that his addiction was under control and that his financial commitments had been reduced by, among other things, a relocation of his practice to a more moderately priced location.
As the referee observed, however, petitioner’s misappropriation of the funds belonging to Mr. and Mrs. B. occurred subsequent to February 1987, a time when petitioner was allegedly under treatment, and the last “slip” into cocaine usage he acknowledged at the hearing was in July 1987, only a few months earlier. That petitioner might not have used cocaine since that time was a record of dubious value in view of his prior lapses after abandoning use of the drug for a few months, as well as the high recidivism rate for. cocaine addicts testified to by petitioner’s own doctor. Even the testimony of petitioner’s fiancee and secretary failed to offer much support for petitioner’s assertion, given that his fiancee testified that what petitioner called his “few slips” had been on the order of once every two weeks or so and that his secretary had at the time of the hearing been in petitioner’s employ for less than three months.
The referee also noted that petitioner did not entirely appreciate the gravity of his misconduct or his duties as a member of the bar. He ignored all State Bar requests for information and for explanations of the basis for client complaints until faced with the application for involuntary inactive enrollment. In fact, he apparently did not reveal to anyone, not even a fellow attorney serving as his advisor and confidant, the scope of his troubles until that application was filed. At the hearing, he continued to assert [1126]*1126that his misappropriation of funds from Mr. D. was “in essence” a negotiated settlement of a fee dispute with the client—an assertion for which there was no support in the record and with which petitioner conceded the client would not agree. He placed the blame for the failure to pay the medical lien of Mr. R.’s doctor upon his former partner, despite the existence of a small claims judgment, which remained unpaid, against petitioner personally. Most tellingly, petitioner pointed to the relocation of his practice as evidence of an attempt to rehabilitate himself and as demonstrating that he had reduced his financial commitments and was no longer a threat to his clients, but his own testimony revealed he had financed that very move with the funds misappropriated from Mr. and Mrs. B.
In view of petitioner’s past lapses and history of recurring wrongs, we cannot conclude the referee erred in finding petitioner’s professed rehabilitation unreliable and insufficient to overcome the strong showing that petitioner posed a substantial threat of harm to his clients and the public. The statutory criteria were established by convincing proof to a reasonable certainty (see Coppock v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 665, 677 [244 Cal.Rptr. 462, 749 P.2d 1317]), and petitioner was properly placed on inactive status as a result.
Conclusion
We conclude that the procedures for the involuntary inactive enrollment of attorneys under section 6007, subdivision (c) satisfy the requirements of due process and that petitioner has not met his burden of proving he should not have been placed on inactive status. We therefore sustain the State Bar’s order enrolling petitioner Daniel James Conway as an inactive member of the State Bar of California.
Lucas, C. J., Broussard, J., Panelli, J., and Eagleson, J., concurred.